FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROPOSED N2 WILD COAST
TOLL HIGHWAY
Volume 5: Comments Report (Part 1)
Prepared for:
National Department of Environmental Affairs,
Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs, and
KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs
Prepared by:
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
On behalf of:
The South African National Roads Agency Limited
Contact:
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Unit 35 Roeland Square
30 Drury Lane
Cape Town
8001
Tel: (021) 461 1118
Fax: (021) 461 1120
Email: fuad@ccaenvironmental.co.za
NRA01N2WC/FEIR
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
PROPOSED N2 WILD COAST TOLL HIGHWAY:
COMMENTS REPORT ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.
INTRODUCTION
This Comments Report has been compiled following the distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) on the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway for public and authority review and comment.
The aims of this report are as follows:
•
•
•
2.
To summarise the process provided for submission of comment on the Draft EIR.
To summarise the comments received within the comment period on the Draft EIR.
To provide responses to the comments received within the comment period on the Draft EIR, as
prepared by the EIA project team, specialists and SANRAL, as appropriate.
COMMENT PROCESS
The key steps that were undertaken to provide Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) an opportunity to
review and comment on the Draft EIR are set out below. Details of the public consultation process
undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process are provided in Section 2.2.2,
Volume 1, and NMA’s public consultation report contained in Appendix E, Volume 1 of the Final EIR.
•
Distribution of the Draft EIR and I&AP notification of availability of report and associated comment
period: The Draft EIR was lodged at 42 libraries and public venues in the study area. The full
document was also sent to 64 key authorities and stakeholders (government departments, municipal
managers and regional authorities). A copy of the full report was also made available on the
websites www.ccaenvironmental.co.za and www.nra.co.za. A notification letter and a copy of the
Executive Summary to the Draft EIR was distributed to all registered I&APs (9 538) in the week
preceding the start of the comment period. The Draft EIR was originally made available for public
review and comment from 10 November 2008 to 9 January 2009. The I&AP database was
continuously updated in response to submissions received, as appropriate; currently the database
comprises 17 003 I&APs (see Appendix 1 of this volume).
•
Advertisements, further notification and media coverage: Advertisements announcing the availability
of the Draft EIR were placed in 22 national, regional and local newspapers (see Appendix 2 of this
volume). Pre-recorded radio announcements in English, isiXhosa and isiZulu were also played on
seven local radio stations to target people in the rural sections of the study area (refer to Appendix E,
Volume 1 of the Final EIR).
The comment period was extended (from 9 January) to 22 January 2009, following I&AP requests
and a directive from the Department of Environmental Affairs. A letter notifying I&APs of the
extended comment period was distributed on 8 December 2008 to 10 005 I&APs. Advertisements
notifying the public of the extended comments period were placed in 11 national, regional and local
newspapers (see Appendix 2 of this volume).
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
1
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
A total of 35 000 colour brochures were produced in English/isiXhosa and English/isiZulu, which
provided information on the project, overall findings of the Draft EIR, where the report could be
viewed, details of the Public Open Days, as well as a route map highlighting the Public Open Day
venues (see Appendix 2 of this volume). These brochures were distributed to libraries, public places,
ward councillors and traditional leaders in the Eastern Cape, and libraries, Traditional Councils and
IEC Election Registration Stations in KwaZulu-Natal.
•
Public Open Days: A series of 17 Public Open Days were held at central locations along the route
during the comment period on the Draft EIR. Transport was provided from outlying areas to the
nearest Public Open Day venue. A total of 3 207 people attended the Public Open Days (see
Appendix 3 of this volume). Relevant details of the proposed project and findings of the EIA were
presented on posters and maps, and the public was given the opportunity to interact directly with
members of the EIA and specialist teams, and representatives of SANRAL, regarding the findings of
the EIA (photographs of some of the Public Open Days are included in Appendix 3 of this volume).
3.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD
A total of 7 876 written submissions on the Draft EIR were received from organizations, individuals or
authorities by the closing date for comment on the Draft EIR (see Appendix 4 in Volume 5, Parts 2 to 4).
All of the issues and concerns raised have been categorised (with sub-categories) and collated into 12
Comments and Responses Tables (see Tables 1 to 12). Submissions received after the closing date for
comment (late submissions) are not incorporated into the Comments and Responses Tables but are
included in Appendix 4 (see Volume 5, Part 4).
The categories are by no means definitive and exclusive and have been used for convenience only. No
importance should be assigned to the order in which the categories are presented. The categories are as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
EIA process and legal aspects (Table 1)
Public consultation process (Table 2)
Specialist studies (Table 3)
Planning and policy (Table 4)
Motivation/Need for the project (Table 5)
Scope of work and construction issues (Table 6)
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Road, traffic and transportation (Table 7)
Alternative routes (Table 8)
Tolling issues (Table 9)
Economic issues (Table 10)
Social issues (Table 11)
Biophysical issues (Table 12)
The Comments and Responses Tables contain four columns, as illustrated below.
No.
•
•
•
•
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
The first column provides the unique number for the sub-category of issue or the issue / concern
contained in the second column.
The second column is divided into sub-categories of issues and under these sub-categories are
entered the issues / concerns raised by I&APs during the two comment periods for the review of draft
reports during this EIA.
The third column contains the response to the issue / concern which has been provided by the EIA
project team, relevant specialists or SANRAL, as appropriate.
The fourth column contains either an “S” or an “E” or both an “E” and an “S”. The letter “S” indicates
that the issue was raised during the comment period on the Draft Scoping Report and the letter “E”
indicates that the issue was raised during the comment period on the Draft EIR. If both an “E” and an
“S” are entered in this column for a particular issue, then it means the issue was raised during the
comment period on both draft reports.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
2
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
3.1
LOCATING INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS
Written comments were submitted by various means during the comment period, as indicated in the table
below.
Method of Submission
Number of
Submissions
Post
Facsimile
Email
Courier
By Hand at Public Open Days
TOTAL
396
2 641
1 391
1 502
1 946
7 876
Copies of all the written submissions are contained in Appendix 4 (Volume 5, Parts 2 to 4). They have
been grouped according to the method of submission - each written submission has been given a unique
number, with each group presented in numerical order. Postal submissions have been coded P1 to
P395, fax submissions F1 to F2641, email submissions E1 to E1391 and courier submissions C1 to
C1502. The written submissions submitted by hand at the Public Open Days have been coded according
to the venue of the Public Open Day, as per the table below.
Public Open Day
Scottburgh
Amanzimtoti
Libode
Mthatha
Qunu
Dutywa
Butterworth
Komga
East London
Thombo
Lusikisiki
Mahaha
Baleni
Wild Coast Casino
Holy Cross
Taleni
Port Shepstone
TOTAL
Coding of Written Comments Submitted By Hand
Scott 1 to Scott 102
AMZ 1 to AMZ 258
Libode 1 to Libode 236
Umtata 1 to Umtata 94
Qunu 1 to Qunu 30
Dutywa 1 to Dutywa 79
Butterworth 1 to Butterworth 95
Komga 1 to Komga 25
East London 1
Thombo 1 to Thombo 126
Lusikisiki 1 to Lusikisiki 191
Mahaha 1 to Mahaha 172
Baleni 1 to Baleni 160
Wild Coast 1 to Wild Coast 54
HC 1 to HC 106
Taleni 1 to Taleni 143
PS 1 to PS 74
1 946
Two lists have been included at the beginning of each group of submissions. The first provides a list of
submissions arranged numerically in the order in which they were received, while the second provides a
list which is arranged alphabetically by Surname, then by First Name or Initial. If no Surname was
provided then the submission will appear at the top of the list ordered alphabetically by First Name. If
neither a Surname nor a First Name was provided the submission will appear at the top of the list above
those submissions listed by First Name only, and will be ordered alphabetically by Organisation. If neither
the Surname, the First Name nor the Organisation was provided then the submission is regarded as
anonymous.
In order to locate a submission the following procedure should be followed:
•
•
Recall how it was submitted (post, facsimile, etc.).
Consult the applicable group of submissions.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
3
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
•
Now look up by Surname and First Name in the alphabetical list at the front of that group and look
across the row to identify the unique number of the submission in the column on the far right-hand
side of the table. This unique number will enable one to find the submission in the applicable group of
submissions, which is presented in numerical order.
The table below gives an example of a typical entry in the alphabetical list at the front of each group of
submissions: Mercy Gumede knows she sent her submission by fax and therefore she looked up her
surname Gumede in the alphabetical list at the front of the group of submissions submitted by fax; under
the entry for her fax submission she can see from the column on the far right-hand side that her
submission was coded F273 and she can now go through the group of fax submissions, which is
presented in numerical order, to find the submission coded F273.
Date fax sent
Surname
First Name
Affiliation
08-Jan- 2009
Gumede
Mercy
Individual
3.2
Address / Fax
Number
031 903 8424
Code
F273
LOCATING RESPONSES TO THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS
Once the copy of the written submission has been located, it will be seen that the submission has been
coded by hand. The coding refers to the places in the relevant Comments and Responses Tables
(Tables 1 to 12 in Volume 5, Part 1) where the relevant issues are reflected, together with their
corresponding responses.
•
•
•
•
The first number of each hand-written code written on the submission refers to the table where the
issue can be found.
The number following the first decimal point indicates the sub-category in that table where the issue
can be found.
The number following the second decimal point indicates where the issue can be found in that subcategory or a further sub-category.
If there is a number following a third decimal point it indicates where the issue can be found in the
second sub-category.
For example, if the hand-written codes on the submission are as follows:
“See
9.20.1
10.4.2
8.2
3.4.4.3”
Then, issue 9.20.1 would be in Table 9 (tolling issues), under sub-category 9.20 (Opposed to Tolling). Issue
9.20.1 is Opposed to tolling on KZN Upper South Coast.
10.4.2 would be in Table 10 (economic issues), under sub-category 10.4 (Affordability for the
Poor). Issue 10.4.2 is Affordability for the Poor of KZN.
8.2 would be in Table 8 (alternative routes issues), under sub-category 8.2 (Impact of traffic
diversion on alternative routes).
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
4
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
3.4.4.3 would be in Table 3 (specialist studies issues), under sub-category 3.4 (Air Pollution). The
further sub-category 3.4.4 is Comment on the Air Quality Specialist Study. Issue 3.4.4.3 is the
third issue raised in sub-category 3.4.4 - Comment on the Air Quality Specialist Study.
4.
KEY CHANGES INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR
In light of the comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses provided, the following key changes
have been effected in compiling Volume 1: Main Report of the Final EIR:
4.1
Addenda to the Aquatic Ecosystems, Social and Planning/Development specialist reports, which
contain substantive additions to the original specialist reports contained in Volumes 2, 3 and 4,
respectively, have been compiled (see Appendix 5 in Volume 5, Part 4). The key findings
contained in the specialist Addenda reports have been incorporated into Volume 1 of the Final EIR,
as appropriate.
4.2 A diagram showing the topography and land use in the study area between Ndwalane/Port St
Johns and the Mthamvuna River, with SANRAL’s preferred route and the Coastal Mzamba route
through this section of the proposed toll highway, has been included (refer to Section 6.2.2 and
Figure 6.1).
4.3 A diagram showing the receiving environment in the section between the Mthentu and the
Mthamvuna rivers, with SANRAL’s preferred route and the Coastal Mzamba route through this
section of the proposed toll highway has been included (refer to Section 6.2.3 and Figure 6.2).
4.4 Information on protected areas along the existing R61 in KwaZulu-Natal has been included in
Section 6.2.6 (and refer to Figure 6.6). As mentioned in Section 13.1, no major upgrades would be
undertaken in the vicinity of the protected areas located adjacent to the existing R61 in this section
of the proposed toll highway during the Initial Construction Period.
4.5 The change in conservation status of Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld, a major
vegetation type of the Pondoland Centre of Endemism, from “Vulnerable” to “Not Listed”, as per the
“Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems” (November 2009), has been noted – refer to
Sections 2.4, 12.2.1, 14.1 and 16.5.1.
4.6 The comparative assessment of alternative alignments in terms of potential impacts on aquatic
ecosystems has been updated in light of the Aquatic Ecosystems specialist Addendum Report
(refer to Sections 10.3, 12.3 and 16.3).
4.7 Sections 14.1, 16.5 and 16.7 have been augmented to include the recommended development and
implementation of an appropriate and adequate Biodiversity Offset agreement between SANRAL
and the relevant conservation authorities. SANRAL has committed itself to the development and
implementation of such a Biodiversity agreement (refer to Appendix F, Volume 1 of the Final EIR).
4.8 The assessment of potential traffic-related impacts of diverted traffic on alternative routes has been
augmented with further information and diagrams on the recommended mitigation measures (refer
to Sections 14.4, 16.5.4 and 16.7.5, and Figures 14.2 to 14.4), as per the traffic specialist report
and responses provided by the traffic specialist.
4.9 The description of applicable noise mitigation measures associated with the alternative route R102
at Umbogintwini, and similar land further south along the existing R102, has been updated (refer to
Sections 14.5 and 16.5.5), as per the noise specialist report and responses provided by the noise
specialist.
4.10 A consolidated evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed toll highway (in particular the
greenfields sections) with relevant Eastern Cape regional and strategic planning initiatives has
been included (see Appendix 5 in Part 4 of this volume, and refer to Sections 15.3 and 16.5.9 of
Volume 1 of the Final EIR).
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
5
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
4.11 Recommendations on selection of alternative route alignments and alternative mainline toll plaza
locations investigated and assessed during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process have
been included in Section 16.7.
4.12 A summary of the key mitigation measures applicable to the further planning and design,
construction and operational phases of the proposed toll highway has been provided in tabular
format (Table 16.16) in Section 16.7.5. The table also identifies relevant parties responsible for
implementation of the mitigation measures and additional resources required, where appropriate.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
6
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 1:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to the EIA process and legal aspects, with responses from the EIA
project team and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
1.1
1.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Assessment of alternatives:
Inadequate assessment of alternatives
Lack of due and equal consideration of all feasible alternatives, including alternative routes,
upgrading of existing routes and options of alternative modes of transport, e.g. rail; the lack
of scope, curtailing further examination of any alternative to the preferred route, to a road as
the preferred infrastructure, and to tolling of the road as the means to financial feasibility
fatally flaws the application. The “do nothing” alternative is not effectively explored while it is
required to be dealt with at the same level of detail as any “go” option. Screening process
severely restrictive as terms of reference were very narrow and did not consider issues
beyond a narrow corridor and/or possible downstream projects or activities. Neither a rail
connection between Mthatha and Kokstad, shipping between Durban and East London,
hydrofoil transport nor any method other than a toll road along a contentious route have been
considered. Neither alternatives, nor the no development option, have been scoped for the
KZN Upper South Coast area. Not for the public to suggest alternatives, it is SANRAL’s
responsibility.
When
Alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the
proposed project (improved road access and linkage to the region while reducing road user costs
and optimising safety and socio-economic benefits) were included in the FSR and analysed for
comparison with either the proposed project between Mthatha and Port Shepstone or SANRAL’s
preferred route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FSR).
Also refer to Minutes of Workshops on Additional Alignments presented in Appendix 15 of the
FSR.
S
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR includes consideration of the “do nothing” alternative, alternative route
alignments and alternative positions of toll plazas. As mentioned in Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR,
the “do nothing” alternative was to be considered in the next phase of the EIA mainly as a “base
case” against which the relative impacts of the other alternatives would be measured.
It is generally acknowledged that “fundamental” alternatives, such as the most appropriate choice
for meeting a transportation need (e.g. road, rail or sea) should be addressed at the strategic
planning or policy level, while the EIA process should address potential impacts of specific
proposed activities (projects). The standard interpretation of “alternatives” in relation to a
proposed activity, means “different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of
the activity”. The “feasibility” or “reasonability” of an alternative must therefore be measured
against the general purpose, requirements and need of the activity - this is undertaken in Chapter
5 of the FSR.
Although there may also be a need for local roads and better railways the main object of
SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design,
construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It
is misleading to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region
because railway or local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all
regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s
obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
It is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude without using toll financing.
The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate needs of the society. Indeed,
government policy is to prioritise social investment in education, health, housing, etc. and such
large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not readily available from Treasury.
Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation provides for alternative funding
mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such alternatives must be explored.
According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road funding which has, over the
years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South Africa’s roads are tolled.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
7
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.1.1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
No consideration has been given to alternatives in respect of routes, funding and means of moving
people, cargo and freight, or consideration of a combination of alternatives. Imposed tolling by
means of private funding is not the only possible solution.
•
Assessment of alternative route alignments:
Alternative alignments were not assessed
Possibility of alternative routes has not been investigated.
suggested by WESSA or any other alternative routes.
No study done on the route
Inadequate assessment of alternative alignments
Total lack of clearly researched and a thorough test of public acceptability of alternatives
[motivation provided]; no mention of any alternative routes considered for the KZN Upper
South Coast. Inland Mzamba not given sufficient attention and should have been selected as
the preferred alternative. Inappropriate that the route between Ntafufu and Mzimvubu
selected as preferred route largely on basis of costs to motorists; insufficient weight given to
routing highway through indigenous forests, compromising the integrity of the forest and
presenting hazards to forest wildlife. Road between Ntafufu and Mzimvubu should be
designed in a manner to bypass the forests; if this is not possible, the existing road between
Lusikisiki and Port St Johns should be upgraded. Ensure integrity of the area’s endemic and
irreplaceable biodiversity. No indication what potential impacts the coastal route will have.
Inclusion of Coastal and SDI routes non-sensical as they have already been rejected based
on the “receiving environment’ – these should be ejected from the FSR and other alternatives
considered. Lack of in-depth studies into alternative routes that would be economically,
socially and environmentally sustainable. The Mzamba route would pose a far lower risk to
sensitive ecosystems than would the SANRAL preferred route and, from an environmental
point of view, have a far greater advantage than the SANRAL proposed route. Upgrading the
existing N2 would not fragment local communities by placing a major highway where there
was none before. Cannot see why there would be more social risks linked to the Inland
Mzamba route when there are already existing roads that can be followed; clearly there is a
massive environmental difference between the preferred route and the Inland Mzamba route;
would be very disappointed if the Inland Mzamba route is not going to be investigated further.
Would have to start de novo – would need to undertake public participation to decide on the
greenfields route since it’s just been decided that engineering wise and economically it’s the
most feasible [motivation provided]. Wrote to the Minister that the previous process was
flawed in that the proponents did not present a proper analysis of the pros and cons for those
alternative routes proposed by other parties and specifically did not consider either improving
the current routes or alternatively using a more environmentally friendly route for the
greenfields sections – Minister wrote back and stated he took the information into account
and decided to set aside the previous decision and authorisation – presentation states the
decision is not based on environmental issues. N2 and R61 alternatives have been
superficially considered; should also be investigated further [motivation provided].
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Refer to response to Item 1.1.1 above.
E
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR includes consideration of the “do nothing” alternative, alternative route
alignments and alternative positions of toll plazas. The WESSA and other alternative routes
which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the proposed project were
included in the FSR.
S
In terms of current legislation (the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998), SANRAL, with the
Minister’s approval, could declare any specified national road or any specified portion thereof,
including any bridge or tunnel on a national road, to be a toll road. Section 10 of the National
Roads Amendment Act, 1996 (Act No. 24 of 1996) repealed the option to provide an alternative
road to a toll road.
S
Alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the
proposed project (improved road access and linkage to the region while reducing road user costs
and optimising safety and socio-economic benefits) were included in the FSR and analysed for
comparison with either the proposed project between Mthatha and Port Shepstone or SANRAL’s
preferred route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FSR).
Also refer to Minutes of Workshops on Additional Alignments presented in Appendix 15 of the
FSR.
The rationale for which alternatives are proposed to be carried forward for further investigation
and which are proposed to be discarded is clearly provided in Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR.
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of relevant
environmental (including social), technical, financial and economic implications of various
alternative alignments.
Section 5.2 of the DSR/FSR mentions that several technical studies (commissioned by the
erstwhile Transkei Government) have previously been undertaken on the identification of a
feasible, direct route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River. Five potential routes were
ultimately identified. For the purposes of this EIA, and to address concerns raised during the
previous EIA that not enough information was presented on the greenfields routes, the five
potential routes were rationalised into four alternative greenfields routes between Lusikisiki and
the Mthamvuna River in order to undertake a comparative analysis of these alignments.
It should be noted that Minister Van Schalkwyk’s official decision (dated 9 December 2004) on the
appeals against the previous environmental authorisation of the proposed project specifically
states: “…The decision dealt only with the question of the independence of the environmental
consultant because that issue itself disposes of all the appeals. …” [Item 5.2]
8
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.2.2.1
No.
Yet again, the consideration of alternatives shows an entirely ambiguous, if not deliberately
misleading set of reasoning in order to come out each time with the ‘desired’ SANRAL routing. For
example, each section in Ch5 (5.2.1; 5.2.2) summarising the consideration of overall route
alternatives from Mthatha to Port Shepstone cites them as ‘in relation to the ‘do nothing’ option’, yet
the comparisons nowhere show what the outcome of the latter is. No attempt has been made to
show what the ‘do nothing’ option might include, and it is proposed only as ’the toll road or no road’,
which is a thoroughly inadequate assessment of alternatives and does not meet the legal
requirements of NEMA. Thus, the ‘do nothing’ option is misleadingly presented to mean that no
alternative options on road transport infrastructure are available from any other agency or entity
than SANRAL, and SANRAL’s only option is the proposed project or nothing. This is quite patently
ridiculous, as numerous other options are available, from improved local roads by Province, to rail
links etc.
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject these allegations. Please be advised that it is clearly
stated in the Draft EIR that the mentioned sections served merely to present the conclusions
reached on the comparative analyses undertaken during the Scoping Study and presented in the
FSR. The cost/benefit analysis was undertaken in accordance with international best practice.
The FSR clearly indicated that the financial and economic figures shown for upgrading the
existing routes between Mthatha and Port Shepstone reflect the difference in costs/benefits
between upgrading the respective routes and the costs/benefits of maintaining them in their
current condition (the “do nothing” option). Refer further to response to Item 1.1.1 above.
E
1.2.2.2
The final paragraph in Item 4 of the Executive Summary covering the consideration of feasible
alternatives concedes that the implications of the “do nothing” option were compiled more for the
purpose of having a “base case” than for consideration as a feasible alternative. APCA strongly
believes that the “do nothing” option should receive far more serious consideration as a very real
possible alternative and not merely as a starting point.
The “do nothing” option was considered in accordance with accepted EIA practice.
E
The rationale for which alternatives are proposed to be carried forward for further investigation
and which are proposed to be discarded is clearly provided in Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR. The
WESSA and other alternative routes which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key
objectives of the proposed project were included in the FSR. Chapter 5 includes consideration of
alternative alignments beyond the proposed “greenfields” route.
S
1.2.3
Criteria used to assess alternative alignments
Who and on what grounds was decision made to deem alternative routes unsuitable. Legal
question of great significance is the selection of a preferred route based on economic
considerations, which is then the only option to be further assessed; SANRAL is legally obliged
to ensure that the EIA process is unbiased in recommending a preferred option based on the
equitable assessment of social, environmental and economic acceptability; SANRAL has thus
acted illegally in determining a preferred route based on “unbridled” economic feasibility. The
“upliftment” motivation for the road is spurious, at best, and deliberately misleading, at worst – if
the roadway is to be fenced it cannot bring economic benefit because local residents will have no
access and, in the event of the toll, there may be an accrued negative economic impact; stated
necessity to uplift the poor ama-mPondo leaves one to wonder why they deserve such
preferential charity while the amaXhosa, east of Mthatha-Butterworth-Dutywa, do not; apparent
reluctance to look beyond the “greenfields” alternative cannot be defended and should be
rejected with the contempt that such a blinkered view deserves. Economic considerations
predominate in the DSR – the more expensive routes are simply written off; iniquitous not to take
into consideration the social and environmental benefits of alternative routes. That the proposed
greenfields section “will bring prosperity to one of the most impoverished communities in South
Africa” is disinformation and will in reality have the opposite effect – it will impoverish an already
poor Pondoland (Flagstaff and Bizana communities) at the cost of promising prosperity via
tourism to a much smaller community in the greenfields areas with the lowest population density.
Financial screening report highlights shortcomings as its analysis was limited only to direct costs
and benefits. Routes taken forward without in-depth socio-economic grounds for making that
choice. Has sufficient research gone into the R61 as an option?; upgrading the R61 should not
be thrown out on cost alone. All the proposed routes between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna
River would potentially cause a medium to high loss of sensitive ecosystems – this indicates that
the right route has not been found – social and financial considerations should not take
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
SANRAL has indicated that their preference was not limited to only a consideration of financial
and economic issues. It included a consideration of technical, environmental, social, financial and
economic issues.
SANRAL has been advised that, in any event, the ECA and the EIA Regulations of 5 September
1997 do not prohibit an applicant from expressing a preference regarding the activity for which
they seek authorisation. Nor do they, or any other legislation, specify what must inform the
decision by an applicant in determining what it is that they intend to apply for authorisation of.
What is required is that for certain activities authorisation must be applied for before that activity
may be undertaken. The ECA and its Regulations then ensure a process whereby alternatives to
the activity preferred by the applicant must be properly considered, investigated and reported.
This is ensured by the requirement that the applicant appoint an independent environmental
consultant who must prepare the necessary reports concerning the potential impacts of the
proposed activity and alternatives thereto.
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of relevant
environmental (including social), technical, financial and economic implications of various
alternative alignments, as appropriate to a screening level study. Guidelines for economic
specialist studies (based on international best practice and currently considered best practice in
South Africa) indicate that potential social and environmental impacts should only be quantified in
9
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.2.3.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
precedence over environmental. Further consideration of alternatives dismissed without
consideration of cost of bridges, tunnels and expropriations, economic cost to towns and other
communities suddenly bypassed, environmental economics of an 80 m swathe through 75 km of
pristine wilderness, strip development – by eliminating any alternatives beyond the SANRAL
“preferred route” the DSR seeks to narrow the full EIA to a degree that renders the process
meaningless. Insufficient importance given to need for costings of the socio-economic and biophysical trade-offs. Document incomplete because WESSA (National) proposals and Mark
Gallagher route not considered; very little factual data produced to compare the toll route to
several alternate inland routes, which would have huge benefits to the local people as well as the
environment. “Medium-High” value for potential loss of sensitive ecosystems with the proposed
toll highway should be “high” or even “very high”. No table showing costs and benefits to either
the local people or the environment. Importance and value of the Pondoland Centre of
Endemism down-played. Nowhere in Chapter 4 was the need to apply the precautionary
principle identified or the need to consider a 2 km wide corridor stipulated, as indicated for criteria
used in comparing alternative routes. Different routes were evaluated differently from a financial
perspective, without justifying why. Route immediately north-west of the Msikaba Sandstone
Formation is so costly that arguing for it would be a waste of time, even though it does avoid the
PCE altogether. Concerned about the weight given to the financial aspects – the environment
should take priority. Development which will follow the road and movement of people to the
development need to be factored in. Alternatives need to be at least 10 km from the coast to
limit access to the coast and to increase access for communities. Need to have an equal
balance between the social, economic and environmental impacts otherwise it negates the whole
process – the Pondoland Centre of Endemism should be sacrosanct from an ecological point of
view - there is a procedural deficiency if you are not screening on all three components. Need to
know costs of how the road actually uplifts the economy; the presentation doesn’t mean much –
everything is measured in rands and cents – it comes back to the cost of the road. Horrified that
the social report was done as a desktop study – no indication of what or where the buildings
were – no ground proof done. Have to list the benefits too – until all the information is available
it’s actually impossible to make a rational decision. Do not understand why communities have to
be moved if the road [R61] already exists. Government should take cognisance of the fact that
protecting our natural heritage is as important, if not more important, than development.
monetary terms when absolutely necessary even at a full EIA level. Their quantification at a
screening level was thus not deemed appropriate especially given the comparative botanical and
social specialist inputs obtained in the screening study (refer to Appendices 8 and 16 of the FSR
for specialist screening reports).
A primary motivation underlying the Tolling principle is that the road construction costs be
maintained at a level that would, to quote the 2008 EIR, keep the ‘toll fee ...less than the road
user benefits’. This implies that in order to be able to charge a toll user fee that is not off-putting
to road users but still enables tolling to be a viable economic proposition, the construction costs
of the road become a prime consideration in route selection. That is, the route for the road
becomes constrained not only by the need to create a profit incentive for the unsolicited bidding
companies, but also to create a fiscal profit out of toll fees. With these motivations as a primary
driving force in route selection, keeping construction costs to a minimum, at the expense of other
considerations, becomes a principle driving force in route selection. The favoured route becomes
one where construction costs are cheapest, rather than a route stimulated by egalitarian
necessity and what is best in terms of social, economic and environmental considerations. Under
these conditions, the very foundations of the proposal are unstable and no amount of EIA’ing
would be able to correct this fault, for the parameters of EIA processes merely allow a limited
commentary on what is an already promulgated proposal.
Refer to response to Item 1.1.1 above.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Ultimately, after submission of all the relevant environmental reports, the relevant environmental
authority must determine whether to refuse or grant authorization for the proposed activity or any
identified feasible alternative.
10
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
1.2.3.2
We do not believe that an adequate study has been conducted, as required in terms of the National
Environmental Management Act, to determine the need for the construction of the Highway. We
are concerned as to the fact that only one route is being looked at, and that the possibility of
alternate routes has not been investigated. In the event of alternate routes having been
investigated and deemed to be unsuitable, who made this decision and on what grounds was this
made.
Refer to responses to Items 1.1.1 and 1.2.2 above.
E
1.2.3.3
WESSA also feels there is still no adequate justification for a tolled highway that alternatives would
not meet, particularly in its routing through the ‘Greenfields’ section of the Pondoland Centre of
Plant Endemism (PCE). Justification for the route is derived primarily from the route being
convenient from a road engineering and cost point of view, which perspective sublimates broader
social development and ecological considerations to secondary status. Upgrading existing routes
or routing the N2 out of the PCE will still provide the same regional socio -economic benefits
without the accompanying risk of environmental degradation to the PCE which the proposed route
could possibly do.
Refer to responses Items 1.1.1 and 1.2.2 above.
E
1.2.4
Alternative alignments assessed in the DSR should be selected as the preferred alignment
The Inland Mzamba route should be taken forward and followed; alignment has not been
given sufficient consideration. Support the SDI route through the former Transkei. If an area
is environmentally sensitive it is likely to be importance from a tourism point of view – would
not support a road anywhere close to the coast but rather an inland, more central alignment.
Previous route was aligned closer to the coast – SANRAL proposed route goes through more
villages, which will be more problematic and dangerous. What are the social issues that are
so huge for the Inland Mzamba and R61?
Noted. Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of relevant
environmental (including social), technical, financial and economic implications of the various
alternative alignments.
S
1.2.5
Assessment of alternative alignments other than those considered in the DSR
A possible third and fourth option for a shorter and more direct route between Durban and
Umtata could be as follows: Durban to Port Edward, to Siyaphambili – from Siyaphambili a new
road could be constructed to Makwanteni thence to Zangotsho thence to Lundini – from Lundini
there are two possible options; the first is to follow the existing T23/1 to Holy Cross and then the
T25 to Quakeni and Lusikisiki – this would be a distance of 414 km from Durban to Umtata; the
second option would be to follow the existing District road from Lundini to Mkamela – from
Mkamela a new road would need to be constructed to Mawotsheni (a distance of about 21 km) –
from Mawotsheni the existing road to Lusikisiki could be followed – distance of this road is 21 km
– the total distance from Durban to Umtata using this route would be 394 km – this is only 16 km
longer than the proposed toll road [motivation provided]. Totally inadequate and irresponsible to
explore the financial costs of the road only; exploration of the impact on the existing
communities of the SANRAL preferred route and the benefits of upgrading the existing roads
required – a high-speed, limited access through route is not designed to benefit the local
community; consider the following alternatives – continuing the N2 from Staffordspost through
Mzimkulu, Ixopo, Richmond to meet the N2, thus allowing access for both Gauteng and Durban
traffic; turning off below Brooksnek at Pakadi and then meeting the R61 at Magusheni and
taking the road down to Port Edward from Magusheni; carry on planned route to Lusikisiki but
Alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the
proposed project (improved road access and linkage to the region while reducing road user costs
and optimising safety and socio-economic benefits) were included in the FSR and analysed for
comparison with either the proposed project between Mthatha and Port Shepstone or SANRAL’s
preferred route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FSR).
Also refer to Minutes of Workshops on Additional Alignments presented in Appendix 15 of the
FSR.
S
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to SANRAL, an outer, outer ring road from Winklespruit that goes inland was planned
by the provincial Department of Transport in the 1970’s and were known as MR579 and MR577.
The latter road has only partially been completed – the final stages are now about to be
completed across the Mgeni River. SANRAL has indicated that the southern parts of MR577 and
the whole of MR579 have been abandoned because they are considered no longer economically
or environmentally feasible.
11
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
from there go through Quakeni and Holy Cross through to Bizana and then south to Port
Edward. No alternatives were investigated in the Amanzimtoti areas; there is a “bottleneck” and
this is not addressed in the report; a better alignment would have been through KwaMakhuta;
independent traffic and civil engineering study required on the potential of routing the toll road
through the area of KwaMakhuta to Illovo. Logical alternative would be a new road from Cato
Ridge (after creation of a suggested container depot) to meet up with the present N2 at Kokstad,
and upgrade the N2 through the Eastern Cape. A more environmentally friendly option would be
to join the N2 from Port Shepstone with the R61 from Port Edward next to Nqabeni Village, and
construct a road from Lusikisiki across the Mzimvubu between Mbokazi and Goqwana to join the
R61 next to Mgwenyana; an even shorter road is proposed, but cutting out the local towns is not
supported as this might have financial implications for local economies - this “green alternative”
is shorter and presumed to be less expensive financially and in terms of environmental costs.
An alignment should be sought farther from the coast – this would also bring advantages for the
local population. Best route optimisation would be as follows: from Durban the route will follow
the existing N2 route to Izingolweni – from Izingolweni the route would go south-westerly, across
the Mthamvuna River at Phunzi Drift and would rejoin the R61 at Redoubt east of Bizana – from
Redoubt the route would follow the existing R61, past Bizana, Magusheni and Flagstaff, to a
point between Bukazi and Zalu, where it would branch off in a south-westerly direction – will
then generally follow existing access roadways into the Mzimvubu valley, where it would cross
the Mzimvubu River below the Tsitsa/Tina and Mzintlava confluences with the Mzimvubu – the
route will then follow an existing access road out of the Mzimvubu valley to rejoin the R61 at
Magcakeni, just west of Libode – from Magcakeni the route will follow the R61 to Mthatha and
on to East London [motivation/justification provided]. Require copies of reports from discussions
with the KZN Town and Regional Planning commission to ascertain to what extent the routing
through KwaMakhuta was investigated. New N2 plan could be implemented which would
bypass Amanzimtoti and many other coastal resorts. Take the N2 from the N3 at Umlaas Rd –
Cato Ridge and then head south to Winklespruit – this would allow a container “depot” at
Harrison’s Flats and free up the congestion around Durban harbour. In order to improve the
standard of living of the locals what is needed is a new road parallel to the coast from Port St
Johns to the Kei. To allow for increased capacity it is suggested that an additional ring road is
built for Durban to tie in with the airport being built at Le Mercy – this could be a toll road from
say Park Rynie linking the Marian Hill Tollgate with the N2 at Le Mercy. Investigate the
possibility of taking the proposed road straight across from between the Mnyameni and
Mpahlane rivers to a point just west of Port Edward on the existing R61, or the Inland Mzamba
route – this could reduce potential impact on the sensitive coastal areas. WESSA route, slightly
inland of the proposed N2 toll route, would be advantageous to both people and the environment
[advantages and disadvantages provided]. Dr Cooper’s proposed route is critical. The
alternative shown as the “inland Mzamba” route should not loop back to Port Edward but should
rather link into the existing N2 near Harding via Bizana [motivation provided]. To avoid impacts
of tolling, investigate some other possibilities such as upgrading existing roads between
Pietermaritzburg and Kokstad or even new roads, e.g. from Pinetown and Cato Ridge to meet
up with the N2 – it has already been suggested that up to 85% of the anticipated cargo on this
road will emanate from the north. Findings indicate that a four lane highway will never be
enough to cope with the KZN Upper South Coast traffic in 10 years time – there is a very definite
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
12
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
and urgent need to divert traffic to an alternative road either around the borders of eThekwini or
to build a heavy traffic super highway some distance inland and leave the N2 road as a
suburban freeway for light vehicles only. Why was an alternative road for the Amanzimtoti area
not considered? The toll road between East London and Mthatha should go via Centane along
the coast. Object – develop a route through the undeveloped areas inland, linking the N3 at
Pinetown and N2 at Hibberdene [motivation provided]. A road from Port St Johns direct to East
London would cut many kilometres and the construction would be cheaper. Would be more
sensible to move the highway 50 km inland and leave the coast to develop naturally.
1.2.6
1.2.7
Existing routes should be upgraded
Already three parallel all-weather road corridors which serve the area between Port
Shepstone and East London – the N2, R61 and R56 - these should be given preference
before a new road is constructed. The N2 or R61 should be followed as this will have
considerably less impact on livelihoods generally in the entire area. The R61 is in desperate
need of repair and development. Benefits of upgrading existing roads must be investigated
and weighed against taking SANRAL’s option. If the R61 and R617 are upgraded most
tourists will be happy. The obscene sum proposed to be spent on a flagship project to
fractionally reduce the time spent travelling between Durban and East London could be far
better utilized in converting the existing R61 into a safe, but scenic and meandering untolled
tourist artery – the R800 m surplus could then be invested in upgrading and tarring local
access roads to the hinterland, to the Wild Coast and to the proposed Pondoland National
Park [motivation provided]. By upgrading the existing N2 the cost of building the eight
bridges could be reduced with a saving to the road users in terms of lower fees. The current
road was never maintained by SANRAL – by allowing it to collapse they are justifying this
highway. What are the costs of upgrading the existing roads? – surely that would be much
cheaper? What will be the increase in distance if the R61 or N2 is upgraded? Upgrade the
existing roads – question sustainability of proposed project as costs to upgrade the existing
R61 to a national road with cuts and passing lanes was estimated at R 990 million –
proposed project is R 3.09 billion [motivation provided].
Chapter 5 of the FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the environmental
(including social), technical, financial and economic implications of various alternative alignments,
including upgrading of the existing N2 and existing R61, and provides a rationale for proposing
which ones were to be carried forward for further investigation and which ones should be
discarded.
Existing local road network should rather be upgraded
Extensive and well maintained network of gravel roads give access to some of the remotest
rural areas in KwaZulu-Natal and has brought more prosperity to impoverished communities
than any tolled freeway can ever claim. Urgent consideration must be given to improving
existing feeder roads [examples provided]. Improving the existing local link roads to improve
mobility while linked to a lower standard provincial road not considered. Existing roads can
be improved and upgraded to follow the contours and wind across the broken landscape to
interconnect villages and/or to provide access to the coast [example provided]. Opposed to
any new construction taking place in an environmentally sensitive area such as the
Pondoland Centre of Endemism – the existing road system should be upgraded but any
further disturbance of the area in question should be avoided. Upgrade internal roads of
townships, suburbs and villages [motivation provided]. Brazil and Scotland don’t allow
national roads within environmentally sensitive areas – have supersensitive feeder roads for
access; can a middle road not be found?
Although there may also be a need for local roads the main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. According to SANRAL, it
is misleading to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region
because upgrading of local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all
regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s
obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
S
E
Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provides a succinct summary of the various
alternatives considered in the Scoping Study and gives a detailed description of the identified
feasible alternatives assessed in the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA.
The motivation/need for the proposed project is explained in detail in Section 3.3 of the DSR/FSR
and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
13
S
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.3
1.3.1
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
•
Assessment of cumulative impacts:
Failure to consider other major regional developments and their cumulative impacts
Other major development options for the region ignored – it is the ability of the region as a
whole to assimilate the cumulative impacts of these developments which needs to be
assessed, and not individual projects piecemeal. Include cumulative impacts relating to
improved access to the region, improved travel times, improved local access to facilities such
as markets, to provide jobs and general upliftment; the associated ribbon development along
roads is not addressed – the lack of scope to look at cumulative impact assessments is a
serious process and legal deficiency. Secondary impacts should be strongly addressed
[examples provided]. Unless all environmental impacts associated with the construction of
the road (including quarrying, etc.) on the whole ecology of the Wild Coast are considered, a
true picture of the environmental cost of the project cannot be obtained. This project is one of
a number of projects that have been or will be considered for the Wild Coast area – each
should not be considered in isolation in terms of their impact on the receiving environment but
should rather be considered in relation to the receiving environment that has a priori been
analysed in terms of its ability to cater for projects. Failed to address the cumulative impact
that the mining will have on the road. Does the EIA look at the long-term impact of the road
along the coast? [motivation provided]
Assessment of alternative modes of transport:
Assessment of rail as an alternative
Has an improved rail system been investigated? Stated government policy is to encourage
greater use of rail transport – the construction of the new toll road is contrary to this policy
and could have the effect of further eroding rail traffic to the detriment of the country as a
whole [examples of railway upgrading and studies to rejuvenate railway traffic provided].
Safe, reliable public transport system would do much to reduce the impact of projected traffic
flows and should be considered. A feasibility study should be done into replacing the
proposed road with rail. Expand the scoping and get involved in rail. The existing rail link
stops at Port Shepstone – if not considering linking up with the Eastern Cape by rail, the
tolling should be stopped at Port Shepstone. Why are railways allowed to deteriorate into
total chaos and heavy vehicles are on the road and local residents have to pay for that?
SANRAL appears to be negative towards any moves to create a cargo railway system for the
conveyance of heavy and bulk cargo in order to relieve the road system of that burden. In this
connection it is noted SANRAL’s total exclusion of any discussion or suggestions that a rail link
would ultimately and environmentally and economically be the most appropriate solution to remove
heavy traffic off the roads. SANRAL should be appealing to the Minister to hasten the return to
Railway for the greater part of bulk and heavy cargo presently conveyed by road. The transport of
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
The botanical screening study undertaken during the Scoping Study used all available information
to assess sensitivity within the broader botanical receiving environment of the alternative
alignments considered. Additional information was collected outside the “narrow” road reserve
corridor and, in order to accommodate possible indirect/secondary impacts, a 2 km-wide road
corridor was considered in the evaluation of potential risk to the botanical receiving environment
(refer to Section 5.2 and Appendices 8 and 16 of the FSR).
S
E
The specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase included consideration of
potential indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the particular field of study and
proposed project. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices
of the Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description
and strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other
land use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
It is generally acknowledged that “fundamental” alternatives, such as the most appropriate choice
for meeting a transportation need (e.g. road, rail or sea) should be addressed at the strategic
planning or policy level, while the EIA process should address potential impacts of specific
proposed activities (projects). The standard interpretation of “alternatives” in relation to a
proposed activity, means “different means of meeting the general purposes and requirements of
the activity”. The “feasibility” or “reasonability” of an alternative must therefore be measured
against the general purpose, requirements and need of the activity - this is undertaken in Chapter
5 of the FSR.
S
E
Although there may also be a need for local roads and better railways the main object of
SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design,
construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It
is misleading to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region
because railway or local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all
regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s
obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
Refer to responses to Items 1.1.1 and 1.4.1 above.
14
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
such cargo by Rail is a far better mode of Public Transport as it is far more environmentally friendly
and sustainable than the present automobile and fossil fuel burnt by vehicles. The removal of
heavy transporters from our roads will not only dramatically reduce the number of road accidents,
but will also ensure that the cost of maintaining the road for light vehicles would be a fraction of the
cost of heavy duty loads. Moreover, a reduction in the need for truck stops will result in a decrease
in the consequential problems of driver accommodation and the negative social aspects that are
prevalent at such stops.
It will also reduce the problems with having many disaster management points to come to the
scene of accidents which happens far too frequently and to contain toxic spills and other hazardous
chemicals in the case of accidents. In the case of toll roads it will prevent the use of secondary
roads which suffers considerable damage caused by the diversion of heavy trucks to avoid paying
toll fees and it will reduce the extra burden of maintaining these roads by the Provincial and
Municipal authorities.
1.5
•
Assessment of alternative methods of finance:
EIA should include a full assessment, including comparative studies, of possible methods of
financing the proposal. Alternative funding options for affordability and viability should be
considered, e.g. separate sections rather than the complete route. Actively pursue obtaining
money from the fiscus. Put the project on hold and raise the necessary amount over say a
10-year period in order not to go ahead with tolling. Why continue to toll existing roads
already paid for? Has an application been submitted to Central Government for the purposes
of funding a portion of the construction of the road – would go a long way to alleviating some
of the financial burdens. Why could government not take the money unused by all spheres of
government departments to build the road instead of tolling? Why doesn’t the Minister of
Transport take a percentage of the money from all our testing stations and all our speeding
fines and put it in a fund for the roads – additional money from tolling would not be needed.
Find other means of financing the new road in the Eastern Cape [motivation provided]. Get
the capital from existing SANRAL income that is not spent on maintenance, from the fuel levy
and from the unspent budgets of those departments that regularly have huge annual surplus.
1.5.1
Alternative means of financing this road have not been considered, as this is a political issue,
however, the level of taxation in this country is sufficient to fund such projects if necessary otherwise we would not be setting up our own space agency and other well-funded non-essential
projects.
1.6
•
1.7
1.7.1
•
Assessment of alternative toll plaza positions:
What is an alternative toll plaza? Where is the second alternative toll plaza site to Mthentu?
International Conventions:
South Africa must meet its obligations in terms of the international conventions to which it is a
signatory
The Wild Coast also serves as wintering grounds for countless migratory birds and if the
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
It is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude without using toll financing.
The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate needs of the society. Indeed,
government policy is to prioritise social investment in education, health, housing, etc. and such
large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not readily available from Treasury.
Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation provides for alternative funding
mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such alternatives must be explored.
According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road funding which has, over the
years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South Africa’s roads are tolled.
S
SANRAL has indicated that the fuel levy was historically introduced as a dedicated road fund as
was used for that purpose. However, in April 1987 fuel levies were incorporated into the Central
Revenue Fund. Revenues raised through a particular tax cannot be preserved for a single prespecified use; instead they go into a central fund and are then allocated across competing uses
via the budgetary process. Thus, fuel levies are not automatically accrued to SANRAL.
Noted. Refer also to responses to Items 1.1.1 and 1.5 above.
E
An alternative locality for the proponent’s preferred location for the Mthentu Toll Plaza has been
identified in the vicinity of the proposed intersection with the Holy Cross/Mkambati road.
S
The detailed specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
included identification and consideration of all relevant legislative and permit requirements
applicable to the potential impacts of the proposed project (refer to Section 9.2 of the FSR and
S
15
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
plans become reality, an important building block of European ecology will be irretrievably
lost; South Africa is a signatory of the Convention on Biodiversity – the natural wealth of the
Wild Coast should not be sacrificed for short-term interests – should remain a significant
natural heritage site and to fulfil its age-old function as an ecological basis for the global web
of bird migration. No indication given that national obligations under international agreements
such as the Convention on Biodiversity (on preventing species extinctions) have been taken
into consideration – such considerations would dictate that any “preferred” route could not in
any way impact on the globally unique PCE. International Conventions and best practices
have to be strongly considered. South Africa has ratified the Convention on Biodiversity, the
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Plant
Protection Convention and the Ramsar Convention – the SANRAL preferred route flouts the
ratification of several international treaties – address these concerns in the next phase of the
EIA. If building near wetlands the RAMSAR convention should be considered, which states
that a similar ecosystem must be established.
Response
When
Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR).
1.7.1.1
In October 2010, the SA Government will be required to report to the Tenth Conference of Parties
(COP) in Nagoya, Japan, on the measures it is taking to stop the loss of Biodiversity. It would be a
proud moment for our country if our Government would be able to report that the Pondoland Centre
of Endemism is to be conserved in its entirety to benefit the Pondo People and the rest of humanity
and that a marine reserve is to be established to increase South Africa’s pitifully small marine
reserves. If the SANRAL Toll Road proceeds as is presently planned, South Africa will be
contravening an international Convention and the people of South Africa will be left to hang our
heads in shame as our green “gold” is destroyed.
It should be noted that Section 16.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR includes an evaluation of
potential project-scale impacts on the Pondoland Centre of Endemism. It should also be noted
that the proposed toll highway may accelerate (in the short term) ecological degradation due to
potential indirect and cumulative impacts, but the absence of the implementation of an effective
conservation plan may ultimately have the same result.
E
1.7.1.2
Climate change, and various international obligations undertaken by South Africa in terms of the
Millenium Development Goals, Agenda 21, and the Johannesburg hosted World Summit on
Sustainable Development of 2002, require that South Africa makes every attempt to reverse
biological and ecological degradation, and reduce the overall national environmental footprint.
Noted.
E
1.8
1.8.1
•
SANRAL has indicated that it is important to note that there are a number of errors in fact and law
in the Independent Review (the Review). Further, SANRAL has been advised that the
preparation of the Review was unfair and procedurally flawed in that recommendations were
made without providing either SANRAL or the consultant to that process an opportunity to
properly respond to the allegations and statements made in the Review. On this basis alone, it is
considered that the Review does not provide a relevant or useful reference point for a critique of
the new application currently before DEA.
S
Flawed EIA process:
Failure to address substantive issues raised from the Independent Review of the previous
Record of Decision
None of the substantive environmental and social issues raised during the previous appeals
process adequately addressed, including in particular the requirements for equitable
assessments of alternatives; the recommendation in the Independent Review of adequate
scoping of Terms of Reference not complied with in the new process, immediately
undermining the credibility and independence of the process – the applicant is thus ensuring
that this process is similarly rejected as fatally flawed, after great expense of taxpayers’ funds
- it is called for this process to be curtailed forthwith. Unless the narrow Terms of Reference
in the DSR are considerably expanded to take due account of public concerns, the new EIA
will merely be a repeat of the last EIA fiasco. Indications given that the new EIA will be an
attempt to justify SANRAL’s preferred route, rather than an attempt to find the best solution in
the best interests of the region. DSR fatally flawed in attempting to solicit issues of concern
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to the application for
authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice R1183 of 5
September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as amended, have
been followed in the EIA process. In this regard, it should be noted that the Terms of Reference
for the Scoping Study were duly included in the Plan of Study for Scoping submitted to the
16
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.8.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
that would be relevant only to the narrow confines of the next phase of the assessment
process; makes no sense to proceed with these narrow restrictions because there has been
inadequate consideration at the SEA level for economic, social and environmental issues.
DSR is seriously flawed – it should address all the findings that were commissioned by
Minister van Schalkwyk – these issues should have formed the basis of the DSR. Will issues
omitted from the previous study be addressed [examples provided] – not opposed to the road
as long as the issues that have been raised are adequately and equitably addressed. No
attempt to address the weaknesses (such as the rationale for the toll road) shown up in the
Review document. The present process must comply with some of the major shortcomings
highlighted in the final review report dated 29 October 2004 to the Minister [examples
provided]. Recommend that the Terms of Reference be agreed upon publicly. Were you
given a copy of the independent review?
relevant environmental authorities and accepted by DEA on 20 June 2005. The relevant
legislation and applicable regulations prescribe the standards and procedure for the application
for authorisation, rather than the Review of the previous EIA.
Concerns Raised in 2004 Appeal Review and Public Participation Process and Still
Applicable in the 2008 EIR Process
Note: - Quotes from the 2004 Appeal Review will be given in italics.
1 - Adequacy of mitigation measures
- The 2004 review stated that ‘ Of particular concern is the pattern adopted throughout the EIA of
assuming that potentially beneficial or positive impacts will necessarily be realized in the
implementation of the project, while on the other hand all potentially harmful or negative impacts
are described as easily capable of mitigation. Such an approach seems to be excessively
optimistic, and entirely inconsistent with the precautionary approach required by NEMA in a case
such as this one. The paucity of detail provided as to how the mitigation will be achieved, or
indeed of the precise location of many of the impacts, underlines the inadequacy of this
approach.
- We contend that there is a misplaced faith in the efficacy of mitigation. There is no consideration
of the worst case scenario or the realities of a huge construction project stretching over 550 km
through remote and often rugged terrain. According to the EIA, many of the secondary negative
impacts will be “controlled” by the authorities and all the benefits will thus be realized. This is
placing enormous faith in the ability of municipal and provincial government to deliver.
- There are frequent references to monitoring and auditing, but at no point is it established how
this monitoring will be enforced.
2008 EIR. Much mitigation of negative impacts are based in the realm of fantasy, rather than
rooted in the realism of practical implementable plans and policy application given local conditions.
That is, the majority of mitigations of environmental impacts are based on assumptions that:a) Local authorities and regional government has the capacity and will to police and control any
negative consequences that might arise as a consequences of the road e.g. ribbon development,
pollution, unsustainable resources use. There is nothing in the recent history of the Eastern Cape
to suggest that local and regional government has either the capacity or the skills to effectively
control negative impacts that might arise from secondary impacts, and everything to suggest that
the Eastern Cape authorities do not currently have the capacity to effectively police negative
impacts and thus be effective agents for mitigation control.
b) Many mitigations are based on an assumption that the Pondoland Park is a given. To date
It should be noted the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure. To illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR assesses the potential residual botanical impacts of
strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section between
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River to be of HIGH significance, in light of uncertainties associated
with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Chapters 7 and 8 describe the issues and concerns raised (including those raised during the
previous EIA and appeals process) and potential environmental impacts identified, respectively.
Most of the issues and concerns and potential environmental impacts identified are negative,
including potential impacts on bypassed towns along the existing N2 and R61. Comprehensive
Terms of Reference for specialist studies are provided in Chapter 9, including a proposed
convention for assigning significance ratings to potential impacts before and after implementation
of mitigation measures.
17
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
anything remotely resembling a ‘Pondoland Park’, or an area that is given high conservation
status in terms of national resource allocation such as a nationally recognized Biosphere,
remains nothing more than a far- sighted dream. Under these circumstances it is difficult to see
how the concept of a ‘Pondoland Park’ can be named as a tool for ‘mitigations’ of negative
impacts.
c) Certain mitigations are suggested as being the responsibility of the construction companies
and SANRAL, but who will police these? There is no indication who will ensure that these are
complied with. Laying the responsibility on SANRAL and the constructing companies to ensure
these are adequately complied with is tantamount to posting robbers to guard the bank!
d) Secondary and cumulative impacts have not been dealt with or addressed in any meaningful
way. The EIR states that these are likely to have a significant impact on ecological systems, yet
again much mitigation are based on unfounded assumptions that local authorities are adequately
equipped to deal with the increased developmental pressures that the toll road might create.
Mitigations for the control of secondary impacts are externalized onto local authorities, yet there
are no concrete or detailed plans which indicate how local and regional authorities are going to
be ‘empowered’ to cope with, or given the means, to deal with the consequences of controlling
mitigating effects. In this sense many mitigation give the appearance of being a ‘cop out’ by
SANRAL. That is, the EIR acknowledges that the proposed route road will have undesirable
negative impacts, but transfers the responsibility of dealing with these onto local authorities who
are already hard pressed to deal with regional social and environmental problems.
Under these circumstances, without a huge effort at local capacity building in terms of human
resources and the development of local government capacity and skills, there is every chance
that the increased pressures on the environment that the Toll road will bring will in the long term
increase local levels of environmental degradation, poverty and social inequality, rather decrease
these. The EIR give no indication on how the necessary capacity building will occur or unfold.
2 - Excising tolling impacts from EIA report
2004 Appeal review states: - The attempt to excise the impacts of tolling from the other social,
economic and environmental impacts of the toll road,... (questions)the adequacy of this approach in
the light of the NEMA principles.... In our opinion, the decision to excise the impacts of one aspect
of the proposed activity, i.e. the tolling of the road, from the EIA process in order for them to be
considered under a separate process, governed by a different statute, was incorrect.
NEMA requirements
“[e]environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the
environment are linked and interrelated, and it must take into account the effects of decisions on
all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the
best practicable environmental option.” (our emphasis)
The decision not to consider the impacts of tolling in the EIA process thus seems to have
ignored these requirements of NEMA.
2008 EIR - The intent to Toll Process and hence the impacts of tolling have not been included in
2008 EIR process and therefore continue to create a bias in the socio-economic impact
assessments as well as on the route selection. (See Introduction)
In its website SANRAL states:‘A toll road is funded by those choosing to pay for the use of the facility”. This is quite clearly
contradicted in the current project, whereby the people and businesses of southern KZN are going
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations
and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance
therewith. This EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs,
including those relating to tolling, are identified and presented. Information on toll sections of the
proposed project and a possible range of toll tariffs at associated mainline toll plazas has thus
been provided. The Draft/Final EIR nevertheless includes an assessment of certain potential
tolling-related impacts (refer to Part D, Volume 1).
18
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
to have to subsidize sections of a road they don’t use.
The SANRAL website states: - “Taxes are not used to fund toll roads, and therefore individual tax
obligations are actually reduced by toll roads”. In this case, as SANRAL will pay the construction
costs for bridges, one assumes out of taxes, the situation is in contradiction of this statement.
3- Application of the Precautionary Principle
2004 - The precautionary principle…its consideration is distinctly significant on account of a) the
inadequate scientific knowledge of the affected ecosystems and b) the uncertainty as to the precise
dimensions and impact of the proposed road. In this EIA there is thus a special need to ‘take into
account the limits of current knowledge’. …Of particular concern is the pattern adopted throughout
the EIAR of assuming that potentially beneficial or positive impacts will necessarily be realized in
the implementation of the project, while on the other hand all potentially harmful or negative
impacts are described as easily capable of mitigation. Such an approach seems to be excessively
optimistic, and entirely inconsistent with the precautionary approach required by NEMA in a case
such as this one. The paucity of detail provided as to how the mitigation will be achieved, or
indeed of the precise location of many of the impacts, underlines the inadequacy of this approach.
2008 – How are mitigations going to be ensured given the reality of local government capacity in
Eastern Cape? Given that the PCE is an area of high significance in terms of biological diversity,
and given the uncertainties surrounding the adequate application of mitigations, and given the EIA
suggestion that secondary impacts ( whose effects has not been assessed in the EIA but which
have been named as important components socio-economic beneficiation) will have negative
multiplier effects on biodiversity.
See Introduction and points 1,6,7,8.
4 -The need for the toll road
2004-The need for the toll road is not well argued in the EIAR, or the RoD. Any discussion on the
need for the road is hampered by the absence of a clear strategic development planning framework
for the Wild Coast as a whole… None of the claims made in the report about the social benefits,
the promotion of agro-forestry in the region and tourism development are adequately argued and
are certainly not substantiated with hard data or numbers. Given that the justification for the project
is based on the development of agriculture, forestry and tourism in the region, as well as ‘other
known developments’, it is surprising that not more attention is paid to these aspects. In this
regard, greater attention should have been given to placing the toll road in the context of the Wild
Coast SDI, as well as the Coega Project. The complete absence of any acknowledgement of the
mining potential in the area is disconcerting
2008 –see introduction.
Socio –economic benefits are unlikely to be realized without a regional development plan that
builds upon local government and human capacity, and without this the added pressures of a Toll
rd are likely to exacerbate social and environmental pressures on the region, thus leading to
increasing poverty and inequality, rather than a reduction in these.
Without a regional development plan there is no indication that a Toll road through the PCE is
needed to realize stated benefits that an upgrading of other transport and route options will not
meet.
Benefits to isolated communities are liable to be negligible unless local roads are also upgraded. If
local roads are upgraded, many of the driving motivations for the necessity of a Toll road fall away.
While the Wild Coast SDI recognized the need for an improved national road in the area, it warned
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
It should be noted the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure. To illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR assesses the potential residual botanical impacts of
strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section between
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River to be of HIGH significance, in light of uncertainties associated
with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
It should also be noted that Chapter 14 assesses, as appropriate, specific issues at a project
scale and/or in relation to toll funding. Section 14.1 includes consideration of impacts associated
with the potential for strip/ribbon/secondary development and indicates that the proposed project
is likely to lead to “significant negative cumulative impacts”.
Refer to Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR and see responses in Table 5:
Motivation/need for the project (Volume 5) in this regard. It should also be noted that the 2004
Appeal Review report also includes the following statement (p. 18): “That there was no proper
prior development planning for the region obviously is not itself a reason to reject the application.
This would lead to the absurd situation where no development could be approved without such
prior planning.”
19
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
that this should be kept out of the PCE and did not state this need be a Toll road.
5 -Public participation process
2004- The public participation process during the scoping study was not comprehensive enough...
Although most (but not all) public concerns were identified in the reports, few were adequately
addressed.
…Local communities were not empowered to comment or make input to the public participation
process. In terms of s2(4)(f) of NEMA, the participation of all I&APs must be promoted and all
people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity to achieve
equitable and effective participation, especially vulnerable and disadvantaged persons. Section
2(4)(h) of NEMA also states that community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted
through environmental education, raising of environmental awareness and other appropriate
means. It would appear that no capacity building was done prior to soliciting input and comment on
the project;
-The manner in which the RoD provides for public involvement in the finalisation of the road
alignment and associated infrastructure design is inadequate for a project of this scale and impact.
2008 – See Introduction. Public participation processes (PPP) of the 2003 EIA was found to be
inadequate, yet these were used as a basis for the 2008 EIR. How can something found to be
flawed in the first round be used as a base for the second round?
Presentations at public open days assumed a fairly high level of literacy in order to be intelligible
therefore unsuitable for illiterate rural communities
Because the foundations of the proposal are flawed, all subsequent ‘public consultation’ has merely
assumed the role of commentary.
SWC is not aware of any widespread process that has been undertaken amongst rural
communities that would ‘empower’ them through environmental education, raising environmental
awareness etc to make informed comment.
The high number of concerns still not addressed in the 2008 EIR point to the public consultation
process for the whole project still being inadequate.
6 -Impacts of secondary developments
2004 Appeal Review-the justification for the project is based on the development of agriculture,
forestry and tourism in the region, as well as ‘other known developments’, it is surprising that not
more attention is paid to these aspects. In this regard, greater attention should have been given to
placing the toll road in the context of the Wild Coast SDI, as well as the Coega Project. The
complete absence of any acknowledgement of the mining potential in the area is disconcerting,
since there are several well-known deposits of heavy minerals along the coast, which are surely
part of the development context.
2008 – While the EIR mentions the possibility of secondary impacts and states these as part of the
beneficiation process, it ignores that these themselves will have environmental impacts, thus
annulling the statements that negative impacts can be mitigated.
See Introduction and points 1, 7, 8.
7 -Biological diversity and offsets.
2003 – The PCE…
•
has a limited extent (only 1 8,80 km2 compared, for example, to the Maputaland Centre
at 26 734 km2);
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
See responses in Table 2 – Public Consultation Process in this regard.
This is incorrect – refer, for example, to the identification of risk sources and assessment of
potential direct, indirect (secondary) and cumulative impacts in the specialist reports (Volumes 2
to 4) and Parts C and D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
The appropriateness and adequacy of any biodiversity offsets proposals will be determined by the
competent authority, in consultation with other relevant authorities.
20
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
•
has species that you will not find anywhere else but within the 1 880 km2 ;
•
many of these species are not known to science and some are still being discovered;
•
many of these species have limited ranges and consist of very small populations;
•
many of these are already threatened; and
•
many of these fall outside formal protection
….(thus) there is a strong case that even ‘small and localised’ parts of the PCE matter. Secondly, it
is not correct to conclude that impacts will only be as a direct impact of physical construction; the
likelihood of secondary impacts (such as ribbon development) is usually high. Thirdly, given that
the PCE is a globally recognised centre of plant diversity (Davis et al, 1994) and a recognised
centre of endemism,… the impacts on the PCE are …of global significance. Fourthly, given gaps
and limitations in data and knowledge of the PCE and biodiversity of the Wild Coast generally, to
conclude that “it is considered very unlikely that the road will result in loss or extinction of plant
species,” is misleading. The EIA is not in a position to claim this with certainty, relying on so little
real data.
-no justification is given as to why the road should traverse this area of global importance. Impacts
of the project will result in irreversible damage to the biodiversity and landscape. An alternative
route bypassing the PCE should be found. …there is very little evidence in the EIAR of the
precautionary principle, prescribed in subsection 2(4)(a)(vii) of NEMA, having been applied in the
findings of the EIAR. This is aggravated by failure to acknowledge that there is very little really
known about the number, type and location of endemic plant and animal species in the Pondoland
Centre of Endemism, as well as by the overly optimistic style adopted in the EIAR of assuming that
virtually all negative impacts will necessarily be mitigated and that positive impacts will also
necessarily be realised.
2008 -Under these circumstances the argument for ‘offsets’ as a mitigation for any loss of
biodiversity that road might threaten is dependent upon a much greater knowledge of the
distribution of threatened flora and fauna, as well as the availability of suitable alternative to ‘offset’
these. The vagueness of specifics for stated mitigation measures, given current poor information
about biodiversity, is worrisome. Statements that conclude that risk of ‘exceeding thresholds’ of
vulnerable species can be mitigated seem optimistic, given the lack of capacity of local government
and the increased pressures through secondary development that the road will create.
If beneficiation of the road depends upon secondary developments as stated in the EIR, these will
further compound environmental impacts. If secondary developments of the type described are
curtailed in favour of low environmental impact developments, then is a tolled highway appropriate
for such an alternative development scenario?
Current Financial and economic value systems are inadequate tools to account for irretrievable
loss of biodiversity that might result from the project. How does one ‘cost’ extinction?
Also see points 1, 3, 6, and Introduction.
8 -Need for a regional spatial development plan
to “map out a spatially-based strategic plan that sets planning goals and limits for potential growth
points along the road” and …the “creation of an appropriate development framework for the region
is seen as a critical institutional intervention”….should have been done as a first step by the
planning authorities and stakeholders in the region, in order to determine the development needs of
the region, and the best means to achieve these, through, inter alia, the improvement of the road
The specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and unbiased
assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed project and nowhere have any attempts been
made to “provide justification for the route”. The assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation
(or enhancement)” was undertaken with due consideration of the likelihood of the proposed
mitigation (or enhancement) measures being implemented effectively.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
21
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
infrastructure.
The mitigation measures proposed are again over–optimistic. For example, on p 68, the authors
state that “mitigation can only take place by planning regions for appropriate development through
consultation with relevant local authorities, and by the National Roads Agency providing input into
development planning at the local level”. This does not take into account the current limitations with
respect to capacity of the local authorities in the region to provide effective regulation of unplanned
development and limitations of development planning in rural areas. Further, the EIA could have
gone a step further to secure the commitment of local authorities in this regard – there is no
indication that this was done.
2008 – The N2 proposal still exists in isolation of a regional development plan. Calls in the EIR for
the development of a regional development plan to ensure the application of mitigation seem rather
a case of putting the cart before the horse. That is, surely the regional development plan should
have come before the route planning of a highway, rather than now trying to push for a regional
development plan when SANRAL already seemed to have determined for themselves what the
route is in isolation of such a plan?
This also smacks of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I.e. the findings of
the EIR suggest that the control of environmental impacts and stated socio-economic beneficiation
is unlikely to occur without a regional development plan, so now is promoting this in an attempt to
provide justification for the route
9 - Affordability of a toll road for the poor
2004 - The author does not question whether the rural communities will be able to afford to use the
road.
The issue of affordability is not addressed….the road by itself will not bring better health care and
enhanced education facilities as claimed (p 52 of the SIA, p 321 of the EIAR); no alternative routes
will be provided and the EIA does not assess the impacts of toll-evading traffic on existing roads,
especially on the South Coast; the EIA does not address how bypassing the towns on the old N2
and R61 will add to the sustainable development of the region. Indeed, the EIA does not address
the need for social justice as set out in s 2(4)(c) of NEMA, nor does it ensure that there will be
equitable access to environmental resources by categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair
discrimination (s 2(4)(d) of NEMA).
2008 - In the dearth of a regional development plan, grassroots consultation and by excluding the
intent to Toll process this has still not been addressed. As Toll fees have still not been determined,
whether the poor will be able afford to use the road remains a moot question.
See also point 8
10 - Control of secondary developments
2004 - that inappropriate and uncontrolled developments will be adequately controlled by the local
or provincial authorities, or failing that, by the developer. While the report does question the validity
of this assumption, it offers no meaningful recommendations as to how secondary development
could be controlled, except by suggesting (pp 44-45, 53) that the road could be the catalyst to bring
all stakeholders together to develop a spatially-based strategic plan that sets planning goals and
limits.
2008 – see points 1, 7, 8, 11.
The EIR names both a Pondoland Park and the Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable
Development Plan (WCCSDP) as documented ‘mitigations’ to control secondary developments.
Furthermore, the 2004 Appeal Review report also includes the following statement (p. 18) – “That
there was no proper prior development planning for the region obviously is not itself a reason to
reject the application. This would lead to the absurd situation where no development could be
approved without such prior planning.”
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Refer to responses in this regard provided above.
This is incorrect. It should be noted that nowhere does the EIR name a “Pondoland Park and
WCSDDP as “documented mitigations” to control secondary developments. None of the
assessment chapters in Part C, Volume 1 of the report, for example, include any reference to a
“Pondoland Park” in terms of recommended mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing
potential negative impacts. Section 16.5.1 (Conclusions: Project-scale and toll funding-related
issues), in concluding the discussion on whether the proposed project could be considered to be
“ecologically sustainability”, makes reference to the control of secondary impacts and putting in
place conservation measures to effectively protect core components of the PCE in this regard.
Please also note that Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that
strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section between
22
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
However, both of these, at this stage, are little more than documents. Both are floundering under
the combined stress of political ineptitude, lack of human and resource capacity building, lack of
adequate financing, unrealistic assumptions at a political level of the realities of grassroots needs
and politics at local community levels, and mistrust by local communities of local political motives.
Unless adequate resources are provided to ensure that these documents get off the shelf and
become successful and implementable, in a manner that addresses local communities needs,
naming them as adequate measures for ‘mitigation’ of secondary impacts is nothing more than
wishful thinking, and smacks of nothing more than trying to find justification for the N2 proposal.
11- Integration into local development scenarios
2004 - -one of the key findings of the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative to be the
development of road infrastructure to enhance access, communication, tourism and accompanying
development. The SDI is based on regional development initiatives and a nodal development
approach for ecotourism... However, the study fails to integrate these proposals with the toll road
concept or to demonstrate the benefits of a toll road in achieving the stated SDI goals. Indeed,
none of the stated development goals are predicated on the presence of a toll road.
- A weakness that runs throughout the EIR is the absence of a clear, cogently argued rationale or
need for a toll road to be constructed along the selected route. The absence of a regionally
applicable strategic development plan makes this weakness all the more serious. If there had been
such a plan it would have been a great deal easier for the EIA to have either argued in favour of the
proposed road supporting the plan or, alternatively, to have developed a compelling argument why
the road should be approved despite it not having clear support from such a plan. The scale of the
proposed project as well as the sensitivity – ecological, social and economic – of the region
requires that there has to be a properly considered argument in support of it.
2008 – in the dearth of a regional development plan which integrates road infrastructure that meets
local needs into broader development objective, arguments for the necessity of a toll road or the
proposed route are hollow.
12 - Economic viability
… it is not clear if the project is viable without tolling or the government subsidy for the bridges.
- the overall need for a toll road along this route has not been cogently argued. This is a
particularly serious omission in a project which passes through an area of such ecological and
social sensitivity. Without a clearly persuasive, logical argument up front as to why the proposed
toll road fulfils a developmental need in the region, the rest of the EIAR is built upon somewhat
shaky foundations.
-The combined effect of there not having been an effective planning exercise in the region and the
EIAR not having developed a persuasive argument in favour of the proposed toll road, is that there
is a strong argument for initiating a new, focused strategic evaluation of the region’s development
options. This exercise must address, among other issues, the question of the transport
infrastructure vis à vis other development initiatives in the region. An outcome of the exercise must
be a recommendation whether or not a toll road is justified
2008 – without a regional development plan which lays out how secondary and multiplier effects
will unfold, the proposal remains in the realm of a capitalist venture with dubious local and regional
benefits. The majority of stated benefits remain in the realm of conjecture and wishful thinking,
rather than being rooted in implementable and practical plans.
Selective accounting based on assumptions about the positive impacts of secondary development
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would result in potential residual botanical impacts of HIGH
significance since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively mitigated.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present
an appropriate and unbiased assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed project and
nowhere have any attempts been made to “provide justification for the route”. The assessment of
potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)” was undertaken with due consideration of the
likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures being implemented effectively.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Refer to responses in this regard provided above.
The economic and financial analyses undertaken as part of the economic specialist study
(Volume 4, Appendix 13 of the Draft/Final EIR) was undertaken in accordance with international
best practice. Part 2 of the economic specialist report (regional developmental economic
analysis) indicates that the key factors considered in determining the “income-multiplier effect” of
the investment in the proposed road included the following: estimate of the direct tax amounts
included in the investment amount; the propensity to consume; and the propensity to import.
These were determined in order to calculate the one-off national income that would result from
the investment in the proposed toll highway.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present
an appropriate and unbiased assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project. To
illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that
strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section between
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would result in potential residual botanical impacts of HIGH
significance since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively mitigated. Also,
Section 14.1 indicates that the proposed project is likely to lead to “significant negative cumulative
impacts”.
23
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.8.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
as well as and multiplier effects, while discounting the potential negative impacts of secondary
developments, give a biased economic view. That is, the economic viability of based on a narrow
and unrealistic reductionist view that all positive impacts will be realized, while all negative impacts
will be successfully mitigated.
The economic assessment is also based on a western, neo-liberal value system which assumes
that all people and all communities have the same aspiration and values as the author, and thus
ignores the value systems, and socio-economic structures of local indigenous communities, who
might have different world views about the economic system that is being imposed upon them by
this ‘top down’ method of planning.
By omitting the intent to toll process from the EIA, a bias is created in the socio-economic
assessments.
Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
Flawed EIA process
DSR and associated public participation process seriously deficient, if not in contravention of
several aspects of the relevant environmental legislation; unless shortcomings adequately
addressed, the new EIA will contain serious environmental, social, economic, legal and
procedural flaws and thus the process will be deficient, unacceptable and illegal and will be
challenged on these grounds. DSR already introduced significant bias in favour of the
development by introducing several positive but unsubstantiated claims as to the “benefits” of
the proposal, without an equal description of negative impacts. EIA has been flawed since
its inception and thousands of people will suffer the consequences of shoddy work. DSR
falls far short of reckoning comprehensively with the broader normative/ethical parameters
that must surely guide and inform a massive construction project of this nature – underlying
the entire proposal is the same “commercial fundamentalism” that was evident in the original
proposal. Underpinning principles of NEMA are not adhered to – environmental integrity is
compromised by bisecting an already proclaimed Protected Area and disturbing a recognised
hotspot. Opposed to the development of a new road link and tolling of existing infrastructure
until a comprehensive net-benefit social and financial analysis has been completed – must
include impacts on alternative transport modes including coastal marine and rail transport.
Scope of project too big – should be broken down into smaller sections with reference to
concerns of the public in each section. Need for improved infrastructure not questioned but
the desirability of a toll road itself as the appropriate infrastructural improvement in the first
place and secondly the identificaton of the most desirable route for any new roads or the
nature of upgrades of existing upgrades in terms of long term positives for social, economic
and environmental concerns needs to be adequately assessed in terms of the “receiving
environment”; respective role players and decision-makers should go back to the drawing
board. Issue of land use transport integration has been ignored – inconceivable that the
project is being pursued in isolation and not within the legislative planning process as is
recognised in the National Land Transport Transition Act. Information gathered from the
previous EIA should be started from scratch. By focussing exclusively on a “toll” road, the
application fails to engage with the real needs of the Eastern Cape. Control of options
presented makes nonsense of the EIA process. Only the preferred alignment is going to be
assessed – that makes the project fatally flawed. Problem was that the DSR was compiled
without sufficient public consultation. What was used as a reference for the process?
Process wasn’t meeting the minimum requirements of the EIA Regulations because of the
The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to the application for
authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice R1183 of 5
September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as amended, have
been followed in the EIA process. In this regard, it should be noted that the Terms of Reference
for the Scoping Study were duly included in the Plan of Study for Scoping submitted to the
relevant environmental authorities and accepted by DEA on 20 June 2005. The relevant
legislation and applicable regulations prescribe the standards and procedure for the application
for authorisation, rather than the Review of the previous EIA.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Refer to responses above regarding the “intent to toll” process.
S
Although there may also be a need for local roads and better railways the main object of
SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design,
construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It
is misleading to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region
because railway or local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all
regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s
obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
24
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
1.8.3
1.9
1.9.1
Response
fact that it was based on the previous study. Is this not an abuse of the system?; the first
one was thrown out – now you can look at what the gaps are fix them so it’s less likely to be
dismissed. Coastal route through the Mkambati reserve is sacreligious – this route must be
withdrawn with immediate effect as no person with a right mind would want to destroy this
nature reserve.
Flawed Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference not adequate and create a fatal flaw to the whole assessment
[motivation provided]. Recommend that the terms of reference be agreed upon publicly. The
Plan of Study should not have been accepted as it perpetuated the limitations of the previous
process.
•
Legal issues:
Legality of SANRAL making a new application for environmental authorisation
Question SANRAL’s locus standi to bring a new application and recommission the EIA – the
legality of the application and recommissioning by SANRAL must be proven before any
further activities are undertaken. Who is the real applicant? – the Wild Coast Consortium or
SANRAL?
When
The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to the application for
authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice R1183 of 5
September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as amended, have
been followed in the EIA process. In this regard, it should be noted that the Terms of Reference
for the Scoping Study were duly included in the Plan of Study for Scoping submitted to the
relevant environmental authorities and accepted by DEA on 20 June 2005. The relevant
legislation and applicable regulations prescribe the standards and procedure for the application
for authorisation, rather than the Review of the previous EIA.
S
Section 22 read with Section 21 of the ECA requires that where the Minister identifies an activity
which in his opinion may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment no person
“shall take” or “cause such an activity to be undertaken” unless that person has obtained written
authorisation. Accordingly there is no doubt that unless SANRAL obtains written authorisation it
may not “undertake” or “cause such an activity to be undertaken”. There is also no need or
procedure for SANRAL to “prove” that it may bring the application.
S
It should be noted that Minister Van Schalkwyk’s decision (dated 9 December 2004) on the
appeals against the previous environmental authorisation of the proposed project specifically
states: “The Minister’s decision does not preclude a new application for environmental
authorisation for the construction of the N2 Wild Coast toll road being submitted.”
1.9.2
Lack of legal review of legislation applicable to the environment
No comprehensive legal review of legislation applicable to such a development, nor which
aspects of which law govern each of the specific aspects of the proposed project, nor how
the applicant should meet these statutory obligations.
It should be noted that the DSR/FSR include a succinct summary of the applicable legislation, as
appropriate to a Scoping Study. It is considered that this was more likely to inform and facilitate
comments from I&APs than a “comprehensive review”. Furthermore, a review of the legislation,
comprehensive or otherwise, is not a requirement of the ECA, its Regulations or the Guidelines,
or any other law.
S
It should also be noted that the detailed specialist studies undertaken during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA included identification and consideration of all relevant legislative
and permit requirements applicable to the potential impacts of the proposed project (refer to
Section 9.2 of the FSR and Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR). These were incorporated into
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
1.9.3
Exclusion of the intent to toll process and the socio-economic impacts of tolling from the EIA
Legal concerns also arise out of the exclusion of the intent to toll process from the DSR, as
SANRAL is the sole authority responsible for applying to the Ministry of Transport for
permission to toll, against which there is no provision for public appeal. Because tolling will
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The EIA team and SANRAL have been advised that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall
outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority. To
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by
25
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
affect one of the poorest regions in the country, and may have major implications in urban
areas on traffic flow routes, the intent to toll process cannot be conducted separately from
the EIA process without severely impacting on best impact assessment practices as laid
down by NEMA to include social, economic and environmental considerations. Consultants
should make the recommendation that the socio-economic impacts of tolling be considered
as the EIA could be challenged based on NEMA, the ECA and the Constitution. Tolling
would have environmental impacts which it seemed were not going to be taken into account.
Unacceptable that nobody has indicated what the expected toll fees would be.
Response
When
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (the Act) and must take place in accordance
therewith. The Act itself specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a
Toll road. To the extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments and representations made
during the public participation process undertaken in terms of the Act, aggrieved parties are
entitled to review the decision. It was advised that issues and concerns relating to tolling and
associated socio-economic impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but be merely captured
in the relevant documentation and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for consideration during
the Declaration of Toll road process.
However, although information related to the potential social and economic impacts of tolling
would not be used by DEA in its decision-making on the proposed project, the EIA project team
deemed it prudent to include consideration of these aspects in the Impact Assessment phase of
the EIA process.
It is a fundamental principle that sustainable development requires consideration of the social,
economic and environmental impacts of an activity. Indeed, it is a requirement of the Public
Finance Management Act (PFMA) that all infrastructure projects must satisfy such requirements.
1.9.3.1
Another term of reference for the current EIA is to “. . . ensure the study complies with the relevant
requirements of the ECA and the National Environmental Act, 1998 (NEMA, Act No. 107 of 1998)
as appropriate.”
A principle of NEMA (cf 2.(4)(i)) stipulates that: “The social, economic [APCA’s emphasis] and
environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits must be considered,
assessed and evaluated and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and
assessment.” A study of the findings of the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA reveals serious
shortcomings in that social and economic impacts on the community of Athlone Park have not been
assessed or evaluated, simply because they have not even been considered.
Commuters from Athlone Park, being located immediately south of the proposed position of the
Isipingo mainline toll plaza, will receive least benefit, if any at all, of anyone using this tolled section
of the N2. In Table 2 of the Executive Summary, a possible toll fee of R8-00 (at 2006 prices) per
trip is suggested. In an average month this amounts to an additional R350 having to be paid by a
commuter from Athlone Park whose place of work is to the north.
Many residents travel to Prospecton, Jacobs, Mobeni, or even further north to Durban or Umhlanga
/ La Lucia Ridge to their places of work. Over a ten year period, assuming toll fees are escalated by
10% p.a., a commuter will have paid about R67, 000 extra, for using a stretch of existing freeway
less than 4 km in length. How the EIA consultant team can have failed to identify this as an
economic impact on the residents of the Upper South Coast is beyond APCA’s understanding.
The Draft EIR has also failed to meet the requirements of NEMA in terms of para 23.(2)(b) of
NEMA, in which a general objective of integrated environmental management is to “. . .identify,
predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic
conditions . . .” APCA believes that the EIA consultants have, once again, failed to adequately
identify, let alone predict or evaluate, the socio-economic conditions that would result from the
positioning of a mainline toll plaza at Isipingo, along with ramp plazas elsewhere in the vicinity.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations
and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance
therewith. This EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs,
including those relating to tolling, are identified and presented. Information on toll sections of the
proposed project and a possible range of toll tariffs at associated mainline toll plazas has thus
been provided. Relevant specialist studies (in particular the traffic and economic studies) and
Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR nevertheless include an assessment of certain potential tolling-related
impacts (refer to Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
Please also note that Table 2 of the Executive Summary is qualified, amongst others, by the
following: the possible ranges of toll tariffs given are based on typical tariffs on existing similar toll
roads in South Africa and as such are highly speculative; the tariffs also do NOT include regional
or local discounts or frequent user discounts; and the actual toll tariffs to be levied if the toll
highway is put into operation would be subject to a competitive tender process and the
declaration of a toll road process, including the negotiation and determining of discounts before it
can finally be approved and promulgated by the Minister of Transport.
26
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
These socio-economic impacts would affect all commuters, whether using public transport such as
taxis and/or busses, or using private means of transport.
The Draft EIR yet again fails to meet a requirement of NEMA, namely in para. 24.(1)(b) of NEMA,
wherein “. . . the potential impact on . . . socio-economic conditions . . . of activities .. . must be
considered, investigated and assessed . . .” The impacts on socio-economic conditions in the
Upper South Coast region as spelled out above are not identified as key potential impacts in
Section 13.2.4 SOCIAL of the Executive Summary, or anywhere else in the Draft EIR.
1.9.3.2
The legislative framework that governs this application is the Constitution of South Africa, 1996
(The Constitution), ECA and NEMA. Section 24 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that every
person has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being and that there
must be legislative measures put in place to secure ecologically sustainable development and use
of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
Accordingly the Constitution has placed the responsibility of ensuring sustainable development
under the auspices of the Department of Environmental Affairs. Its responsibility is to ensure the
well being of people, which takes into account their social and economic conditions.
Any development in the absence of a consideration of those factors is contrary to the Constitution.
NEMA was promulgated to achieve these objectives, and any activity has to comply with the
provisions of NEMA. The preamble to NEMA states that the state must respect, protect, promote
and fulfil the socio-economic and environmental rights of everyone and strive to meet the basic
needs of previously disadvantaged communities. NEMA establishes principles for decision-making
on matters affecting the environment. The principles apply throughout the Republic to the actions of
all organs of state. The statute is clear: the processes apply in addition to other statutory
authorisation processes and may not be excluded in favour of other processes. It is this critical
aspect that appears to have been entirely overlooked by the applicant, the consultant and the
authority at the outset, rendering the entire process defective.
Reference to the environment in NEMA means the surroundings within which humans exist
including physical properties and conditions that influence human health and well-being. Amongst
the principles and objectives included in NEMA are that environmental management must place
people and their needs at the forefront of its concerns and serve their physical psychological
developmental and social interests equitably, and development must be socially and
environmentally and economical sustainable. Sustainable development requires the integration of
social, economic and environmental factors in the planning, implementation evaluation of decisions
to ensure that development serves present and future generations.
Accordingly NEMA makes it mandatory that a social and economic assessment is undertaken in
respect of any development to ensure sustainability of a project. This cannot be abrogated to
another functionary.
The ECA under which this application is brought describes the environment as ' the aggregate of
surrounding objects, conditions and influences that influence life and habits of man.' Accordingly, a
consideration of the environment or of environmental issues in the context of an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) under the ECA must also necessarily include social and economic
impacts and issues.
The construction, erection or upgrading of roads …and associated infrastructure' requires an EIA to
be undertaken, with particular reference to 'any road determined to be a national road in terms of
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer to responses to Items 1.9.3 and 1.9.3.1 above. Also, judgement on the ethics, morality or
constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the scope of the EIA process and should
rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
27
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
section 40 of the South African Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 7 of 1998 including
any part of such road; and any road for which a fee is charged for the use thereof.'1
Accordingly what has to be specifically authorised under this activity is not merely a road but a toll
road. This is simply not evidenced in the report rendering it fatally flawed on this basis alone.
Accordingly the absence of a proper social and economic assessment as required by law and as it
relates to all aspects of the proposal, especially that area where it is patently obvious that the
greatest social and economic impacts will occur, renders this application fatally defective.
This is also particularly so, in that if the tolling of the Durban South Area is deemed not sustainable,
then it is likely to render the entire proposal from Isipingo to Gonubie not sustainable. So to exclude
this exercise is self defeating.
It is submitted then that neither the SANRAL nor DEAT can divest itself of its mandatory statutory
duties to investigate and consider these impacts, and in the case of DEAT, to grant authority to
construct and upgrade a toll road without this assessment. This is more so in this instance where it
amounts to placing this power in the hands of a public company, namely SANRAL, which makes
the ultimate decision on whether an activity which will benefit it is to be approved or not. The only
conceivable instance in which SANRAL may decide to abandon a proposal to toll would inevitably
be when the cost-benefit analysis weighs against
the proposal. Those concerns differ in fundamental respects from the factors and ultimate concerns
at play in the environmental processes contemplated in the ECA and NEMA.
The “Intent to Toll” Process under section 27 of the South African National Roads Agency Limited
and National Roads Act, 1998 is only a notification process and not a substitute for an economic
and social assessment under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (ECA). In the past DEAT has erroneously not taken into
account the financial impacts of a proposed Toll Road, stating that this is adequately catered for
under SANRAL. The Constitutional Court has now categorically confirmed in the Fuel Retailers
Case2 that notwithstanding any process that may be contained in any other law, an environmental
impact assessment must contain an associated economic and social assessment to which the
authority must apply its mind. This is more so in the instant case as the “Intent to Toll” process in
any event is not an assessment as required by NEMA, but a simple notification process, with no
recourse to an internal appeal that is provided by NEMA and the ECA. And the “Intent to Toll”
notification will only take place after the EIA has been undertaken, and probably even after a
decision has been issued by the DEAT, which is contrary to the requirements of NEMA, and the
principles of sustainable development.
Despite numerous submissions relating to the need to undertake a proper economic and social
assessment, and despite recommendations in this regard arising out of the previous EIA process,
there has been a vigorous opposition to this by SANRAL and the consultants.
1.9.3.3
The failure to assess the impacts of tolling (on the basis that the intent to toll process is separate)
has the effect of excluding very significant negative socio-economic impacts and obscuring the fact
that many of the people in the area will not be able to afford to use the toll road. The failure to
consider this important socio-economic implication of the proposed N2 is inconsistent with the
requirements of NEMA that all environmental and socio-economic impacts of a proposed project
must be assessed in an integrated manner.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer to responses to Items 1.9.3 and 1.9.3.1 above.
28
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
SANRAL’s original attempt to exclude discussions over the location of proposed toll gates appears
to have been reversed once Uscata rigidly insisted on the disclosure of that information.
Subsequently, the Minister of DEAT warned the public that it would be illegal to consider toll fees
under an EIA, that decision being the prerogative of the Minister of the DOT in the intent to toll
process.
The intention by SANRAL to toll the N2 national road is clearly evident in the EIA process, as the
name given to the project is “N2 Wild Coast Toll Road”. In addition, SANRAL have insisted on
justifying the tolling in all the EIA Executive reports issued, both during the first (failed) EIA and now
again in the second time round. With SANRAL’s intentions being so clear, their appointment of the
EIA consultants, and their likely convincing influence over the whole process inclusive of the final
decision made by Minister of Transport, it appears unlikely that the EIA process will be of much
benefit to the public at large as the National Transport Ministry is largely both judge and jury in the
whole process.
Judgement on the ethics, morality or constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the
scope of the EIA process and should rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
E
1.9.4
Validity of intent to toll process
Challenge the undemocratic act which allows the Minister to hold an “intent to toll” process in
which he or his agents (SANRAL) are the sole arbiters as to the validity of the objections.
Having no leave to appeal to anyone but SANRAL would constitute monopolistic practices
and would be a violation of the legislation and be an infringement of individual rights as
embodied by the Constitution – the DSR does not seem to provide any means to overcome
this conundrum for the terms of reference for the project exclude the Intent to Toll process.
SANRAL is once again the lead agent acting as player and referee which is unacceptable
and lacks transparency in the process. DEAT’s approach is constitutionally wrong as it
denies the public the right of recourse – the public are only given 30 days to comment in the
Intent to Toll process.
Judgement on the ethics, morality or constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the
scope of the EIA process and should rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
S
1.9.5
Use of information from the previous EIA
Data from the previous EIA cannot be used to “inform” the new process; because the
previous RoD was overturned through a lack of independence, no information in it can
reliably be assumed to be unbiased and accurate – the only way such bias and deficiencies
can be overcome is if all previous information is discarded and assessments re-compiled by
independent specialists from scratch, i.e. the complete process must be started afresh. Is
this not an abuse of the whole system? – can look at what the gaps are and fix them so it’s
less likely to be dismissed. Was the previous EIA being used or was a completely new EIA
being done? Were the specialists found to be impartial? - did you determine that or was that
determined through legal advice? Was a lot of the information based on the previous EIA?
If the precautionary approach was exercised then the consultants should reject 100% of the
previous EIA, including the specialist studies and the public participation. How can studies
undertaken by some distant Prof Pienaar be included in this EIA when the first EIA was
considered fatally flawed? How can the previous EIA be used if it wasn’t independent?
It should be noted that the Terms of Reference for the Scoping Study were derived from input and
discussions with DEA, as per Clause 5.1 of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s
decision (of 9 December 2004) on the administrative appeals against the previous authorisation
granted for the construction of the proposed project. It is considered prudent to use
documentation received or compiled as part of the previous EIA process in order to identify and
address relevant issues and concerns. Failure to do so may very well result in a contention that
relevant information was ignored. For example, there is no reason why an I&AP who participated
in the previous EIA process should be prejudiced by having concerns which they expressed in
that process discarded. In one of the submissions where the validity of the use of information
from the previous EIA process is questioned, it is submitted that the comments on the DSR rely
“substantively” on an appeal against the previous RoD. There is no reason why other I&APs who
participated in the previous process should not have this same benefit. The distribution of the
DSR for review and comment provided I&APs an opportunity to comment on the proposed project
and scope of the EIA and to raise any new issues and concerns. This FSR includes all comments
from the previous EIA process as well as those raised during the current Scoping Study.
S
1.9.3.4
When
A substantial amount of information on the potential impacts of the proposed project was collected
by way of the previous specialist studies. Information considered accurate and adequate were
not re-done as part of this EIA. The previous specialist reports were considered to reflect
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
29
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
independent specialist studies suitable for use in the current EIA, except in two cases, namely the
Eastern Cape planning/development study and the visual study. New, independent studies were
commissioned to address these aspects in light of the deemed lack of independence of the
previous environmental consultant. General and specific Terms of Reference for new or updated
specialist studies were formulated in order to ensure that all relevant issues and concerns, and
identified shortcomings and/or gaps, are adequately addressed in the current EIA (refer to
Chapter 9 of the FSR).
When
1.9.6
Failure to comply with EIA legislation
Broad, unsubstantiated generalised claims are totally unacceptable and undermine the
credibility and neutrality of the DSR – the assessment must assess all impacts equally and
introduce no bias to the results so that a rational, independent decision can be made –
clearly not the case in the current DSR – not in compliance with legal requirements and must
be discarded, with the process started anew (provided it is found the whole process can be
legally recommissioned by SANRAL).
Regulation 6 of the ECA EIA Regulations specify that a Scoping Report must include the
following: a brief project description; a brief description of how the environment may be affected;
a description of environmental issues identified; a description of all alternatives identified; and an
appendix containing a description of the public participation process followed, including a list of
interested and affected arties and their comments. Detailed assessments of the potential impacts
of the proposed project were undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process.
S
1.9.7
Failure to comply with the provisions of NEMA
SANRAL has stated publicly that their role is not to educate on the secondary impacts of the
road, thus abdicating their responsibility to NEMA. The toll road cannot be “socially,
economically and environmentally sustainable”. Adequate study not conducted, as required
by NEMA, to determine the need for the construction of the highway.
Detailed assessments, including consideration of the potential indirect/secondary and cumulative
impacts and evaluation of the ecological, social and economic sustainability of the proposed
project, have been undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process.
S
Refer to responses to Items 1.9.3 and 1.9.3.1 above.
E
It should be noted that the Terms of Reference for the Scoping Study were derived from input and
discussions with DEA, as per Clause 5.1 of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s
decision (of 9 December 2004) on the administrative appeals against the previous authorisation
granted for the construction of the proposed project. It is considered prudent to use
documentation received or compiled as part of the previous EIA process in order to identify and
address relevant issues and concerns. Failure to do so may very well result in a contention that
relevant information was ignored. For example, there is no reason why an I&AP who participated
in the previous EIA process should be prejudiced by having concerns which they expressed in
that process discarded. In one of the submissions where the validity of the use of information
from the previous EIA process is questioned, it is submitted that the comments on the DSR rely
“substantively” on an appeal against the previous RoD. There is no reason why other I&APs who
participated in the previous process should not have this same benefit. The distribution of the
DSR for review and comment provided I&APs an opportunity to comment on the proposed project
and scope of the EIA and to raise any new issues and concerns. This FSR includes all comments
from the previous EIA process as well as those raised during the current Scoping Study.
S
1.9.7.1
1.9.8
One is faced with an obvious question and that is seeing that there is Government legislation that
requires all these facts to be considered why this has not been done i.e. National Environmental
Management Act (NEMA) Chapter 1 - Principles - sub section 2 - Chapter (4) (i) The social,
economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits must be
considered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such
consideration and assessment.
Validity of curtailed Scoping process
How can a “comprehensive audit of all the issues and concerns raised during the previous
Scoping Study” be used when the original Scoping Study fell far short of the requirements of
NEMA and public participation? As one of the main public objections to the last EIA was that
the public participation process was inadequate and biased, the new process should widen,
not reduce, the opportunity for public participation. Statement that the previous Scoping
Study had been accepted is absolute nonsense. Because so many people have already
involved themselves in the project and listed so many issues of concern, the DSR motivates
that there is no need to have a series of meetings to scope the issues with the public – this is
mostly true, and the PPP done during this scoping phase has been adequate.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
30
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
1.9.9
1.10
1.10.1
Enactment of legislation relating to national roads and toll roads
Questionable methods used to legislate Roads acts, with the intention being to lessen the
impact and to hide the full implications if seen in one Act; firstly, the Act that allows the
Minister of Transport to take any road and declare it a national road; secondly, to toll any
national road; thirdly, to toll any national road and not provide an alternative route – there is a
need to test the constitutionality of these Acts - the Minister of Transport is expected to hold
an “intent to toll” process, which is supposed to give legitimacy to this devious practice and
then gets away with being sole judge and adjudicator whether or not the objections raised
during this process are valid.. Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act clearly
unconstitutional - the whole tolling process is unconstitutional. It has got to be
unconstitutional to levy a toll on a section of the community.
•
Bias towards the Applicant:
Independent verification of information supplied by SANRAL
Where key data are supplied by the Applicant, which appears to be SANRAL, these must be
independently reviewed and verified by independent specialists – instances where SANRAL
have supplied questionable figures include costings for the preferred route and alternative
routes, traffic projections, population densities, etc. – traffic volume figures compiled by
USCATA and APSA based on NAAMSA vehicle sales give a very different picture of
projected traffic volumes. Vague, unverified and unquantified assertions that the project will
benefit the region via “jobs will be created’, “it will open up the region for eco-tourism”, “it will
provide faster transport between East London and Durban for commerce” are misleading at
best and blatantly false at worse; discussions with the Department of Transport indicate that
the need for a freight corridor is not a requirement in the area; nowhere is it shown how this
“high-speed through route” will meet local needs better than an upgrading of existing roads –
no comparative assessment has been done; in the absence of this proposed development
being in response to a specific need identified by a suitably adequate SEA or similar for the
region, the sole reason for SANRAL’s preferred route remains based on economic
expediency of a commercial venture by construction companies rather any real proven
regional need. Must be made abundantly clear to whom purported benefits and known
negative impacts will accrue. SANRAL’s figures appear not to take into consideration local
factors, e.g. planned development in the eThekwini area – by using untested figures (through
peer review) the public is forced to base decisions pertaining to the road on possibly
incorrect information, thus perpetuating any inbuilt bias carried over from the last EIA.
Research into traffic destinations and origins ought to be done, for without such research
SANRAL’s claims that traffic would rather use the N2 over existing routes are spurious, and
neither can the impact of loss of traffic to the N2 on bypassed towns be assessed.
Independent peer review must be carried out as to the viability of the claims about the
current route being the most economically viable/desirable route. The consultants state at
the beginning of the document that it has been assumed that technical information on
potential alternatives is accurate – the consultants need to be impartial. It is stated that tolls
are to cover the cost of work on the related stretch of road, but figures being quoted are far in
excess of probable applicable figures – engineers can produce estimates of probable cost
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
Judgement on the ethics, morality or constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the
scope of the EIA process and should rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
S
An independent technical review of information supplied by SANRAL has been commissioned
(refer to Appendix 17 of the FSR for the independent technical review report).
S
Comprehensive Terms of Reference for specialist studies were provided in Chapter 9 of the FSR,
including a proposed convention for assigning significance ratings to potential positive and
negative impacts before and after implementation of mitigation measures. Amongst others,
specialist traffic and economic studies of the proposed project were undertaken during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA.
According to SANRAL, available road planning documents have, as far as possible, been taken
into account in the planning of the proposed project. It should be noted that comprehensive traffic
count data are available. SANRAL has indicated that, from a technical perspective, the relevance
of using national vehicle sales figures to determine corridor traffic flows is, for obvious reasons,
not applicable.
31
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
that are essential before tenders are invited – there is a fear that cross subsidisation of the
order of 1000% is secretly being envisaged. Who supplied the financial information – if
SANRAL, how independent is the study? I would expect that traffic figures would be verified.
1.10.2
Emphasis of positive benefits and under-emphasis of negative impacts
Much space already devoted to describing supposed “benefits” of this project whilst not
devoting an equal amount of time to the negative and harmful impacts – the significant
negative impacts of such major infrastructure projects are well-documented, e.g. the negative
impacts on the towns along the existing N2 and R61 roads are nowhere considered – such
bias introduced from the DSR stage seriously questions the independence of the reports and
the neutrality of the assessors, and undermines the whole EIA process from the beginning;
further it is assumed that all potentially positive or beneficial impacts will necessarily be
realised, while all negative or harmful impacts are either ignored or dismissed as easily
mitigatible, a serious if not fraudulent attempt to bias the perceptions of the general public as
well as the decision-making process. New road would be shorter than the N2 and R61 but is
very damaging to an environmentally sensitive area that has great potential for reducing
impoverishment by becoming a tourist attraction.
It is incorrect to state that an equal amount of time has not been devoted to potential negative and
harmful impacts. Chapters 7 and 8 of the FSR describe the issues and concerns raised and
potential environmental impacts identified, respectively. Most of the issues and concerns and
potential environmental impacts identified are negative, including potential impacts on bypassed
towns along the existing N2 and R61. Comprehensive Terms of Reference for specialist studies
undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EA process were provided in Chapter 9 of
the FSR, including a convention for assigning significance ratings to potential impacts before and
after implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
S
1.10.3
SANRAL’s approach to the project
SANRAL has acted in bad faith and stands accused of manipulating the project; challenge
the claim made by SANRAL that the technical information on potential alternatives in the
previous faulted EIA is accurate and demand that the present EIA be withdrawn and
declared invalid [list of claims/statements provided]. Cannot accept the arguments and
excuses used by SANRAL when they have to justify their ignominious attempt to thrust the
idea of tolling the established highway down the throats of people on the Upper South Coast
[motivation provided]. How can anything that SANRAL says be believed? [motivation
provided]. SANRAL is arrogant and dismissive and great exception is taken to the veiled
threats of do this now for future congestion or you will be put into the “big melting pot
priorities”.
SANRAL rejects such fallacious allegations.
S
1.11
1.11.1
•
Lack of information in DSR:
Insufficient information in the DSR
DSR has confused itself by both providing limited description of certain activities as though
these are now “complete” as well as little or no description of other activities, as though these
are not to be considered – as such, this process is significantly flawed in its approach,
undermining any credibility in the process. Far too many “ifs, coulds, maybes and
assumptions”. Area from Mazize to Port Edward very crudely mapped with only a vague
suggestion of outdated census figures on population density. No map to show exactly where
the Msikaba Village is situated; nothing mentioned about the plants of the Pondoland area.
Maps provided are not supported by background geographical (e.g. land use and
demographic) information; maps do not adequately reflect sensitive biological communities,
the heavy mineral deposits and sand-dune mining options near Port Edward – lack of
provision of all the relevant information is, according to the Access to Information Act, a flaw.
Review comments prepared for the Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism are indicated
with “*” - this document in its entirety should be included as many comments are still very
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to the application for
authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice R1183 of 5
September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as amended, have
been followed in the EIA process, and has guided the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process.
Regulation 6 of the ECA EIA Regulations specify that a Scoping Report must include the
following: a brief project description; a brief description of how the environment may be affected;
a description of environmental issues identified; a description of all alternatives identified; and an
appendix containing a description of the public participation process followed, including a list of
interested and affected parties and their comments. Information provided in the DSR/FSR is
considered adequate in terms of meeting these requirements. Detailed assessments of the
potential impacts of the proposed project were undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase
of the EIA process.
S
A substantial amount of information on the potential impacts of the proposed project was collected
by way of the previous specialist studies. Information considered accurate and adequate were
not re-done as part of this EIA. The previous specialist reports were considered to reflect
independent specialist studies suitable for use in the current EIA, except in two cases, namely the
Eastern Cape planning/development study and the visual study. New, independent studies were
32
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
much applicable. DSR does not qualify what “sustainable” is – should have alluded to the
other NEMA principles which do help to qualify “sustainable”. [examples provided].
Substantial opposition to the proposal and/or sections of or issues relating to the proposed
road is not conveyed – the sheer number of appeals against the previous application is very
telling, but glossed over as if it was a mere formality in the EIA process. No detail provided
about how the locals will be compensated to ensure that they will not be financially worse off
than before. Does the issue of mining form part of the DSR?
Response
When
commissioned to address these aspects in light of the deemed lack of independence of the
previous environmental consultant. General and specific Terms of Reference for new or updated
specialist studies were formulated in order to ensure that all relevant issues and concerns, and
identified shortcomings and/or gaps, are adequately addressed in the current EIA (refer to
Chapter 9 of the FSR).
It should be noted that the appeals against the previous EIA were audited and formed one of the
key sources of original documentations used in identifying issues and concerns and key
shortcomings and/or gaps that need to be addressed in this EIA process. Key issues and
concerns identified are discussed in Section 7.6 of the FSR.
Section 6.5.1 of the DSR/FSR presents a discussion of relevant planning considerations in the
Eastern Cape section of the proposed project, including mining.
1.12
1.12.1
•
1.13
1.13.1
•
1.13.1.1
If negative environmental impacts are to be controlled in a manner that will not jeopardize the
biodiversity of the area, then the type of development path of which the N2 Toll road is both a
symptom and a proponent is simply not suitable for a future path of sustainability in the Wild Coast
area. It is absolutely certain that South Africa can no longer afford to take lightly the environmental
impacts of any development path it chooses. The 2006 South African Environmental Outlook report
( SAEO) published by the Department of Environmental Affairs, clearly shows that South Africa’s
natural resources are being degraded across the board at a rate that is completely unsustainable,
and to continue on such a path will increasingly severely hamper national goals of economic and
social development.
EMP:
Request for EMP
Pondoland is where the toll road is critically required from a transport network perspective
and where the environmental impacts will be felt the most – once the most feasible option has
been decided upon, receipt of the EMP will be appreciated. Draft EMP is inadequate and
assumes compliance in an area devoid of the necessary capacity to enforce it. EMP should
be submitted also to eThekwini Health Department - should consider all potential impacts and
the mitigatory measures to be put in place.
Sustainable Development:
Proposed road does not meet the criteria of sustainable development
Justification of the need for the project on social and environmental grounds especially in the
greenfields section is questionable if the principle of sustainable development is considered
as balancing social, economic and environmental issues. Appears to be no sustainable
benefit from either a toll highway or even from the SANRAL preferred route. Don’t need or
want this unnecessary and costly venture on the KZN South Coast, nor do the people of the
Wild Coast – need carefully planned and sustainable development, not a four-lane highway
that will pass us by, literally and figuratively. Report does not address the needs of the
people. Development must be sustainable and not degrading.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. Responsibility for implementation of the EMP would rest with the Concessionaire, should
the proposed project be authorised. The Concessionaire would need to appoint dedicated
environmental staff to ensure compliance with the requirements of the EMP and any other
applicable conditions.
S
An evaluation of the ecological, social and economic sustainability of the proposed project and the
identified feasible alternatives was undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA.
S
Noted. It is a fundamental principle that sustainable development requires consideration of the
social, economic and environmental impacts of an activity.
E
33
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.13.1.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
I objected in principle to the previous proposal for the N2 toll road, particularly with respect to the
Greenfields section between Lusikisiki and Port Edward and wrote at great length regarding this. I
also made submissions regarding the route, which were largely disregarded as they did not accord
with the SANRAL preferred route. I understand the wish to follow a route that is most appropriate
from the topographic viewpoint and which is the most economic, but we have to recognise that
other factors need to be taken into consideration, notably the social and environmental factors
which cannot be assessed on a purely financial or expedient basis. My comments therefore are
made on principle rather than detail.
My overriding principle is that our – that is humanities’ – top priority is the health of the planet. Daily
we hear reports of the dire consequences of Climate Change and Biodiversity loss. These reports
are frequently watered down as, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
believes the public should not be told a picture of such doom and gloom that it leads to despair and
inaction. Yet we humans - we believe as people of faith - have been given responsibility to care for,
look after and protect the planet for future generations. We have been told to be “earthkeepers”
(Genesis 2:15), but we have become earth destroyers with scant regard for the well being of the
rest of creation. Developments have been directed only for the benefit of humans and the money
that can be made.
The second principle is that from a biblical perspective, we are told to establish justice and equity
between people. We would add that this now requires justice for all creation. In principle we oppose
projects that are designed to benefit the privileged and the powerful to the disadvantage of the
powerless, poor and dispossessed.
Given that all scientific calculations show that we have to have begun to reduce our CO2
emissions significantly by 2012, and that there must be a significant re-appraisal of transport, we
find it not only extraordinary, but irresponsible to be continuing to propose a road involving vast
costs and requiring huge quantities of cement (the production of which carries a huge carbon
footprint) when alternatives exist, which will not only be environmentally less destructive, but will
also benefit the local communities.
So on grounds of environmental responsibility and justice, we oppose this and we ask again that
the needs of the local communities be considered as the priority and not that of engineers and the
trucking industry. This is an eco-justice issue – demanding justice for both the environment and
economic justice for the poor and dispossessed. We recognise the need for good roads. SANRAL
could have done something by now instead of following this policy which is designed to inflate the
egos and pockets of those in Pretoria to the detriment of local people.
If we are serious about combating Climate Change, we have to stop burning fossil fuels. That does
not mean we stop generating energy – the sun provides for all our needs and can provide more
than enough electric energy, but it should mean that we redevelop railway systems and public
transport generally. It also means that we use resources wisely and for the good of the majority and
not just because money can be made, which is the motivation for this proposed road which came
as an unsolicited bid.
Noted. It is a fundamental principle that sustainable development requires consideration of the
social, economic and environmental impacts of an activity.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
34
When
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.13.1.3
1.13.2
1.13.3
1.13.3.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Increased traffic flow projections are based upon an assumption that increased traffic flow is going
to maintain a steady and predictable rate. Oil peak theory and the current global economic
downturn make this a questionable assumption. Climate change, and various international
obligations undertaken by South Africa in terms of the Millennium Development Goals, Agenda 21,
the Johannesburg hosted World Summit on Sustainable Development of 2002 and the South
African Environmental Outlook of 2006, require that South Africa makes every attempt to reverse
biological and ecological degradation, and reduce the overall national environmental footprint. The
recently adopted National Framework on Sustainable Development recognizes that without these
measures, achieving stated social and economic development goals will be increasingly unlikely,
as the effects of environmental degradation will increasingly erode the resources available for
socio-economic development. It is imperative that for a future path of sustainable development to
be achieved, any infrastructure proposal that comes with a high environmental footprint or impact in
biodiversity, such as the Greenfields routing of the N2 through the PCE requires, absolute
prudence. The mitigation measures outlined by the EIA, as well as the driving motivations as the
various secondary proposals suggest, does not inspire confidence.
Noted. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and
strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land
use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
Concerns about the environment take precedence over the social and economic needs of
people
People are complaining because so much concern is shown for the vegetation but there is no
food on the table. The Coastal route would be much better as it would be a continuation of
the road from Durban down the coast and it would be more practical in avoiding cattle and
people in close proximity to the road – the coast is vacant and the road should be located
there. The community wants improvement, development, job creation – anything that will
address poverty. Environmental impacts were not considered in KwaZulu-Natal – the road
should go along the coast allowing the EC province to develop like KwaZulu-Natal. The road
is wanted as soon as possible – don’t care about people looking at insects because there are
many freeways in South Africa. Unfortunate that the environment is considered more than
the community of the area as the community is not eating the plants that are of concern.
How could it be ensured that he road went ahead as it was heard that there are people who
were opposed to the road and were in favour of preserving the environment – these people
should come and live in Mkambati if they want to preserve the area. People outside
Pondoland call the area a Centre of Endemism and an unspoilt coastal area but they don’t
have to live there.
Noted. It is a fundamental principle that sustainable development requires consideration of the
social, economic and environmental impacts of an activity.
S
Noted. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and
strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land
use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
National Framework on Sustainable Development
The recently adopted National Framework on Sustainable Development recognizes that without
these measures, achieving stated social and economic development goals will be increasingly
unlikely, as the effects of environmental degradation will increasingly erode the resources available
for socio-economic development. It is imperative that for a future path of sustainable development
to be achieved, any infrastructure proposal that comes with a high environmental footprint or
impact in biodiversity, such as the ‘Greenfields’ routing of the N2 through the PCE requires,
absolute prudence. The mitigation measures outlines by the EIA, as well as the driving motivations
as the various secondary proposals suggested as beneficiation, do not suggest that such prudence
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
35
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
accompanies this proposal. I therefore ask that the proposed N2 toll road be cancelled and a more
detailed study done into alternatives which consider the above points involving sustainable
development for the local communities in a manner that is friendly to this fragile and rare
environment.
1.13.3.2
There are non-negotiable ecological thresholds; that we need to maintain our stock of natural
capital over time; and that we must employ the precautionary principle in this approach’ (National
Framework on Sustainable Development: 21)
The recently adopted National Framework on Sustainable Development (NFSD) recognises that
future social and economic prosperity depends upon ‘maintaining the integrity of natural, financial
and human capital, to ensure that economic and social development is reconciled with
environmental protection’ (NFSD: 21). It is clear that a future path of sustainable well-being for all
involves working within the parameters of environmental limits, and reversing environmental
degradation where this has occurred. This is particularly relevant in an area such as the Pondoland
Centre of Endemism, where many communities are highly dependent on the direct use of natural
resources for their livelihoods. Any developments that threaten high environmental impacts and
add to land use pressures in a manner which would further degrade natural resources, threaten to
increase, rather than decrease, poverty, as they undermine the natural resource base that local
communities are dependent upon. The 2008 N2 Toll road EIR clearly indicates that the Toll road
will have high environmental impacts, and that these will be compounded by secondary
developments. Without the constraints of a regional development plan geared toward protecting the
interests of grassroots communities and the natural resources that they are dependent upon, and
which builds local capacity and human skills, a development such as the N2 is liable to result in
increasing environmental pressures on sensitive environments, leading to increasing environmental
degradation and a spiral of increasing poverty and inequality.
Noted. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and
strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land
use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
1.13.3.3
South Africa, as a self-proclaimed developmental state, requires a far greater level of strategic
planning across national and provincial government agencies to agree what developmental
infrastructure is required in each region, and an agreed, budgeted, coherent and complementary
plan across all sectors to achieve this. We can no longer afford a strategic planning vacuum in
which individual agencies, with individual mandates and limited accountability to decide for
themselves which developmental projects they will or will not support, and in particular, we cannot
afford taxpayer-funded entities such as SANRAL, established to operate in the interests of these
taxpayers, to be fronting for private enterprise for massive infrastructure projects which conflict with
local infrastructure needs and with national interests in other spheres such as environmental
sustainability. SANRAL needs to position itself and its planning within the context of the NFSD
nationally and the WCCSDP locally and work with other sectors and not against them. In the light
of the numerous deficiencies and shortcomings in the strategic planning, rationale and purported
societal benefits used to justify this proposed project, it must be curtailed forthwith and a coherent
cross-sectoral mechanism set-up in the EC to roll-out the WCCSDP within the principles of
sustainable development detailed in the NFSD.
Noted. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and
strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land
use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
1.13.3.4
I am concerned that the proposal falls short in complying with NEMA regulations and in this light
the development will thus neither support the vision of the National Framework for Sustainable
Development which is a guideline for all future development in our country.
Noted. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and
strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land
use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
36
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.14
1.14.1
1.15
1.15.1
1.15.2
1.15.3
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
•
Project description:
Flawed project description
New EIA is a contradiction in terms; called upon to comment on a process called the
“proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway” – are SANRAL speaking on behalf of the Minister of
Transport – if so, when did he make the declaration that he is calling these various roads the
N2 Highway. New EIA goes to great detail of explaining all the tolling aspects, yet these fall
outside of the Minister of DEAT’s Terms of Reference, and therefore outside of any scope of
the EIA, and should form no part of the process. The toll road is from Port Edward to East
London – already have a toll road from Durban to Port Edward.
Presentation of inaccurate information in the DSR:
Inconsistencies in the drawings
Figure 1.1. shows the road passing through Port St Johns while Figure 4.4 shows the
opposite. Figure 4.6 does not show the alternatives although referred to in the text.
Greenfields alignments shown on slides have background information, but not the other
alignments.
Response
When
SANRAL rejects any allegation that it has acted in any unlawful manner. Refer further to
declaration of the national road N2 between “Umtata and Mtamvuna River”, Notice No. 583 of 7
May 2004 (Government Gazette No. 26330).
S
The statement that there is a toll road from Durban to Port Edward is incorrect.
This is incorrect. Both figures show the proposed greenfields route between Ndwalane and
Ntafufu. It is mentioned that the alternative alignments are considered in Chapter 5 – Figure 5.1,
for example, shows the alternative greenfields routes between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna
River considered initially in the Scoping Study.
S
False or inaccurate information in the DSR
The DSR and visual presentation given to I&APs state that the RoD was not set aside on
environmental grounds – this is blatantly incorrect as the Minister clearly stated in writing that
all of the concerns raised in the appeals were upheld – the majority of these appeals were
upheld on environmental issues. Statement made that SANRAL had nothing to gain from
whether toll road proceeds or not was patently untrue – who are the shareholders in this
limited company. It is remarked that the N2 and R61 are the only primary accesses to the
area to date – the other access from KZN and Johannesburg is the R56 between
Pietermaritzburg and Kokstad. The Keiskamma River is not on the Wild Coast, it is in the
Ciskei. Estuaries along the Wild Coast have been identified nationally as having high
biodiversity and ecological importance, not “botanical” as stated. There is no organisation
such as the World Wildlife Foundation – it should be the World Wildlife Fund. Doubt the
statement that Pondoland had poor soils. Stated that there has been no work done on the
road since 1980 – whole new junction and new set of traffic lights have since been built; Oribi
Gorge Nature Reserve is not close to the road. The DSR should be re-issued since it
contains inaccurate information – otherwise the whole process is flawed [motivation
provided]. The RoD was overturned, it was not withdrawn.
According to the official decision of the Minister on the appeals against the previous
environmental authorisation of the proposed project, dated 9 December 2004, it is stated that the
decision dealt only with “the question of the independence of the environmental consultant
because that issue itself disposes of all the appeals”. According to the official decision, the
decision of 3 December 2003 to grant SANRAL authorisation to proceed with the construction of
the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway was “set aside”.
S
Inaccurate statements at public meetings
SANRAL denied that it had wrongly accused NGOs of trying to stop development in the Wild
Coast – however, this has been well documented in the press; reasons given at meeting for
the change in applicant in the EIAs did not reflect the conclusions drawn in the Review of the
EIA.
SANRAL has indicated that it stands by its statements.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
It should be noted that Regulation 3 of the ECA EIA Regulations require the Applicant to appoint
an “independent consultant” who must, on behalf of the Applicant, comply with the regulations.
The FSR has been corrected, as appropriate.
37
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.16
1.17
1.18
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Lack of SEA and other strategic studies:
Current process fundamentally flawed in that the basic concept should have been evaluated
considering total impact costs and national socio-economic priorities before an environmental
impact study was undertaken. Inadequate consideration at the SEA level for economic,
social and environmental views. Where is the needs analysis of the toll road?; no strategic
development plan for the Wild Coast exists – surely this is a precursor to such a project?
Was it not appropriate to do a SEA, seeing that the N2 was covering such a large area?
Problematic that there is no national strategic plan, which is why it is questionable that
SANRAL is reapplying. Study should be undertaken that looks at macro-level planning.
•
Insufficient assessment:
Financial screening report limited only to direct costs and benefits and does not consider
other important issues such as social costs and benefits. More research and study should be
done before undertaking this road which will have long term adverse effects if not given
enough consideration. It is of concern that the economic screening report states that a
number of economic impacts have not been taken into consideration [examples given] –
omitting them is a flaw. One would assume that a second scoping report would take care of a
lot of things which had previously not been finalised – alternative routes and botanical
aspects have not been sorted out and things have been misstated – do you actually want to
look at these issues that must have come up in the first report but haven’t been taken into
consideration.
•
Specialist Studies phase:
Social, noise, air quality, visual, traffic and economic impacts stated are unacceptable to the
Amanzimtoti region and indeed the Upper South Coast; would appear that no further
specialist studies would possibly be undertaken in the Upper South Coast. Information
required on measures to be put in place to mitigate negative impacts that may arise either
from the highway impacting on nearby residential or industrial areas and vice versa,
especially when considering MHI type industries. Since many specialist studies have yet to
be completed, it is hoped that the FSR will not be issued until these have been completed.
Will tourism and land use studies be done again? Sense of place study should be done as a
separate study. Who will be doing the studies? People from outside the areas concerned
might not have a good understanding of the communities. Outcomes of the specialist
economic study should be seen. Any specialists for further input must be local. Specialist
reports should be done by the region – public should be involved in the drafting of the
specialist report. Seems like quite a lot of weight is being put on the specialist studies – have
these been chosen? What are their terms of reference? Who appoints them? Who pays
them? Have they signed a declaration of independence? Are they the same ones that were
used last time? If specialist reports are going to concentrate just on the boundaries of the
alignments then this EIA is fatally flawed because it fails to look at the indirect and cumulative
impacts on the surrounding areas. What guarantee is there that these specialist studies will
be done? How will the social life of the people that are impacted going to be studied?
Economic and social studies are not part of your mandate – it’s an Environmental Impact
Assessment; a traffic study and a noise study must be part of the EIA. How much time will
specialists have? Communities must be involved in the socio-economic, environmental and
other issues.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
An SEA of the Wild Coast (January 2006) has been undertaken. In terms of transportation
networks on the Wild Coast, a number of “opportunities” and “constraints” related to the proposed
toll highway were identified (refer to Section 6.5.1 of the FSR). It should be noted that the
findings of the SEA were considered in the identification of potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project (refer to Chapter 8 of the DSR/FSR).
S
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of relevant
environmental (including social), technical, financial and economic implications of various
alternative alignments, as appropriate to a screening level study. Guidelines for economic
specialist studies (based on international best practice and currently considered best practice in
South Africa) indicate that potential social and environmental impacts should only be quantified in
monetary terms when absolutely necessary even at a full EIA level. Their quantification at a
screening level was thus not deemed appropriate especially given the comparative botanical and
social specialist inputs obtained in the screening study (refer to Appendices 8 and 16 of the FSR
for specialist screening reports). Further detailed specialist studies on the potential impacts of the
proposed project were undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA.
S
Detailed specialist studies on the potential impacts of the proposed project have been undertaken
during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA (refer to Chapter 9 of the DSR/FSR and Volumes
2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR). These studies, including social, noise, air quality, visual, economic,
traffic, etc., considered potentially sensitive areas along the entire route of the proposed toll
highway. Amongst others, specialists identified mitigation measures in terms of their likely
effectiveness and practicability.
S
A specialist visual study has been undertaken to investigate and assess potential impacts of the
proposed project on sense of place of the affected landscape, as appropriate (refer to Sections
9.2 and 9.3.10 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 4, Appendix 10 of the Draft/Final EIR).
Specialist studies duly considered time required to update available information and to address
any shortcomings and/or gaps, as appropriate. The proposed Terms of Reference for specialist
studies were set out in Chapter 9 of the DSR/FSR. New planning/development and visual studies
were undertaken. Independent specialists undertook the required specialist studies.
38
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.19
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Application of the precautionary principle:
Precautionary principle not applied where insufficient data is available. Absence of any
mention of consideration of the precautionary principle shows a considerable degree of
selectivity on the part of the consultants.
Response
When
This is incorrect. The precautionary principle was applied in the screening of alternatives (refer to
Chapter 5 of the DSR/FSR) and was an important principle applied in the detailed specialist
investigations and assessments undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process.
S
1.19.1
Given the lack of information about flora, fauna and the functioning of eco-systems in the region,
the Precautionary Principle has not been upheld.
Although species distribution patterns within the greenfields areas may not be well-known, habitat
requirements for known Species of Concern can be reasonably well predicted. It is therefore
possible to assess potential impacts on species and ecosystems with some confidence and to
take a precautionary approach where confidence levels are not high.
E
1.19.2
There is inadequate data on the biological diversity and ecological functioning of the area. It is
thus not possible at this stage to quantify the potential damage that will result from the road.
The proposed road does not appear to take into account the people whose livelihoods depend on
the functional environment and certainly does not take into account the biodiverse and unique flora
and fauna. There can be no justification for the road to proceed upon the background of inadequate
public participation and knowledge of consequences that may follow from the creation of such a
structure.
Refer to response to Item 1.19.1 above. A detailed assessment of the potential impacts on
vegetation & flora and fauna is presented in Volume 2, Appendices 1 and 2, respectively, while
the potential social impacts of the proposed project is presented in Volume 3, Appendix 5 of the
Draft/Final EIR. These potential impacts are included in Parts C and D, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
E
1.20
•
The pre-application meeting was arranged for the relevant environmental authorities and was held
at the offices of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in Pretoria.
S
This is included in Appendix 2 of the FSR.
S
As mentioned in the DSR/FSR, the desk top audit was undertaken and checked by the EIA
project team.
S
1.21
1.22
1.22.1
•
•
Pre-application meeting:
With whom and where was the pre-application meeting held on 15/4/05?
Plan of Study for Scoping:
Requests copy of DEAT’s acceptance of the Plan of Study for Scoping.
EIA process:
Audit of issues from previous EIA
Who carried out and checked the “desk top audit”? What complaints were received about the
previous EIA? Whose interest were the appellants serving? What were the major concerns
that were raised from the previous consultation? What are the issues that have been raised
so far?
1.22.2
Site Visits
How were the alleged field trips during May and October 2005 organised, advertised and
conducted?
The EIA project team arranged the field trips for relevant role players. The field trips were
conducted by vehicle and helicopter.
S
1.22.3
BID
Where is the BID and to which I&APs was it distributed?
The BID is included in Appendix 6 of the DSR/FSR – it was distributed to 3721 I&APs on an initial
database compiled by the public consultation consultant.
S
1.22.4
FSR
Will the FSR be available for comment by I&APs? What is the timeline for finalising
responses? Will the DSR be amended to take into account concerns raised?
The FSR was lodged in public libraries/venues for public information. It has been submitted to the
relevant environmental authorities for consideration and acceptance, as appropriate.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
39
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
1.22.5
DEAT decision-making
Request copy of DEAT decision on the FSR and Plan of Study for EIA. Should the Minister
accept the Scoping Report with the identified deficiencies, his decision at this stage will be
subject to appeal or review; the same applies to the approval of the Plan of Study for EIA
should that plan of study perpetuate the irregularities. What weighting is given to public
opinion and what weighting do economic factors have in decision-making?
DEA’s decision on the FSR and Plan of Study for EIA was communicated to all identified I&APs.
Decision-making by the environmental authorities needs to take into account, amongst others, the
National Environmental Management Principles as set out in NEMA.
S
1.22.6
Qualifications of EIA Consultants
Qualifications as consultants should be provided to assess whether the consultants are
qualified to be doing this.
Key EIA project staff are duly certified by the Interim Certification Board for Environmental
Assessment Practitioners of South Africa as Environmental Assessment Practitioners. For further
information in this regard, please visit www.ccaenvironmental.co.za.
S
1.22.7
Weighting of issues
What weighting does the public domain have and what weighting do economic factors have?
What weight would comments from directly affected communities have? If it is not wanted in
Amanzimtoti but there are lots of votes for it, will it go through? What importance is attached
to meetings in reaching a consensus? Signed so many petitions – when will the people be
listened to?
Decision-making by the environmental authorities needs to take into account, amongst others, the
National Environmental Management Principles as set out in NEMA.
S
1.22.8
EIA process being used to delay development
EIA process is seen as a way of avoiding the development whilst development takes place in
other areas, e.g. Gautrain.
Noted.
S
1.22.9
Record of Decision
On what basis could the proposed project be rejected? Is this road ever likely to materialise?
What are the chances of obtaining a positive ROD as there were many objections to the last
EIA. How will the objections concerning the Pondoland Centre of Endemism affect the
outcome of the EIA? Has it been agreed that the toll road would go ahead? What is the
time-frame on this project? Can assurance be given that the road could not be stopped? If
the road were rejected, would the park and mining still go ahead? Is the planning already
completed and has the Minister already given the ROD? What are the responsibilities of
DEAT and SANRAL? Would the key issues be highlighted to the Minister? Feeling was that
the road is a fait accompli irrespective of the impacts. If the previous process was topped on
a technicality is this process a formality to get approval? The road will be railroaded through
anyway.
Decision-making by the environmental authorities needs to take into account, amongst others, the
National Environmental Management Principles as set out in NEMA.
S
1.22.10
Appeal process
Do the people have rights and can they appeal against the toll road? Was the previous road
stopped because of environmental reasons? How could appeals be avoided in this process?
A statutory 30-day appeal period would be applicable after the Record of Decision is issued by
the relevant environmental authority. According to the official decision of the Minister on the
appeals against the previous environmental authorisation of the proposed project, dated 9
December 2004, it is stated that the decision dealt only with “the question of the independence of
the environmental consultant because that issue itself disposes of all the appeals”.
S
1.22.11
Programme for completion of EIA
How long will it take for this process to be concluded? The EIA must be done quickly.
It is anticipated that the EIA study would be concluded during 2009.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
40
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
1.22.12
Reason for EIA being done again
People have been waiting since 2003 for the road to be built – what was the problem that
prevented the project from going ahead? Was the project stopped by environmental
organisations? The proposal was not stopped only because of the independence of the
consultant.
According to the official decision of the Minister on the appeals against the previous
environmental authorisation of the proposed project, dated 9 December 2004, it is stated that the
decision dealt only with “the question of the independence of the environmental consultant
because that issue itself disposes of all the appeals”.
S
1.22.13
Independence of consultants
How much work do you get from SANRAL? – this would be a measure of independence.
How could this process be done by independent consultants when they were paid by
SANRAL?
The EIA study is being undertaken in terms of the provisions of the ECA EIA Regulations, which
require that an Applicant appoints and “independent consultant who must on behalf of the
applicant comply with these regulations”. Further, the applicant is “solely responsible for all costs
incurred in connection with the employment of the consultant …”
S
1.22.14
Alternative alignments workshop
Would it be possible for ECPB to be part of the workshop with WESSA and DEAT about the
National Park?
Refer to Appendix 15 of the FSR for notes of the workshops on additional alternative alignments.
S
1.22.15
Plan of Study for EIA
Requests copy of the Plan of Study for EIA when it was ready.
Noted.
S
New EIA Regulations
It is possible that the new EIA Regulations will be more toll friendly – are we waiting for these
new laws?
•
Bias towards the Applicant
The assumption that all impacts can be overcome by mitigation measures
As with all EIRs, impacts are identified and objectively recorded. Assessments, on the other hand,
tend to conclude that impacts can be overcome through mitigating measures.
The new EIA Regulations came into effect on 3 July 2006.
S
Please note that the assessment of potential residual impacts was undertaken with due
consideration of any uncertainties associated with the effectiveness and implementation of
identified mitigation measures.
E
1.23.1.2
Protection of comparable habitats. The reality is the days are gone when one can just ‘declare’
protected habitats on ‘empty land’, so how are offset proposals to be undertaken without concrete
planning and prior consultation? Given that many of the endemic species of the PCE are highly
area specific, and given the lack of data about the region, it is questionable whether ‘offsets’ would
prove a reliable way of protecting biodiversity. Who will finance ‘offsets’? Again this as a mitigation
seems overly optimistic given the reality and does not allow for worst case scenarios.
Refer to Section 14.1, Volume 1 of the Final EIR. The appropriateness and adequacy of any
biodiversity offset proposals will be determined by the competent authority, in consultation with
other relevant authorities.
E
1.23.1.3
Mitigation measures seem to require considerable control and prohibition measures to be put in
place. Who is going to finance and police these, given the extreme lack of capacity of East Cape
authorities? Outcomes of this seem unduly optimistic given current realities.
Please note that the assessment of potential residual impacts was undertaken with due
consideration of any uncertainties associated with the effectiveness and implementation of
identified mitigation measures.
E
1.23.1.4
Unplanned nodes – given the lack of capacity of local municipalities, how are local authorities going
to ensure that no unplanned nodes develop when there is not a comprehensive development plan
in place that outlines nodal development and capacity building of local government to enforce or
manage this? The Wild Coast Spatial and Development Plan outlines a controlled manner of
development for nodal growth, yet until such time as there is local capacity to implement
recommendations for the control of unplanned nodal growth such as those suggested in the
WCCSDP, mitigations to control unplanned growth are nothing but whimsy.
Please note that the assessment of potential residual impacts was undertaken with due
consideration of any uncertainties associated with the effectiveness and implementation of
identified mitigation measures.
E
1.22.16
1.23
1.23.1
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
41
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
1.23.2
Bias of specialist consultants
The Lack of Independence and Bias continues afresh in this second round. NB: The bias of this
specialist “A serious concern of most of the interest groups that were consulted was the
PERCEIVED lack of a viable alternative route to the N2 if it is to be tolled.”
1.23.3
1.23.3.1
Bias towards a tolled road and the SANRAL preferred route
It is apparent that the EIA extols the benefits of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway without
providing equitable alternatives. In particular, it threatens to degrade existing roads through minimal
maintenance if the proposal is not accepted, whereas in fact the alternatives should provide roads of a
comparable quality.
What is clear is that the road infrastructure in the Wild Coast region must be improved, irrespective of
whether the roads are tolled or untolled, or of the particular routes selected. The economic
advantages to the region should quickly recover the initial capital costs of such a project, which
means that National Treasury should be persuaded that, in the national interest, funding should be
made available. This will enable a high-quality national road to be constructed, which will be
considerably cheaper, and much more efficient, than a comparable toll road.
In the light of these conclusions, this EIA should be rewritten to include the option of an untolled
national road. In particular, the “do-nothing” option in the EIA will then mean that existing routes will
be improved to the same quality as the proposed toll road. Moreover, it should also mean that the
existing road in the section from the Mthamvuna River to the Isipingo Interchange will not be tolled.
The actual route of such a national road, and any additional road infrastructure, can then be
determined to maximise the advantages for the local communities and South Africa in general.
Response
When
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of lack of independence, and bias.
E
The specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR have assessed potential negative and
positive impacts which would result from the proposed toll highway. Although there may also be a
need for local roads, the main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National
Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction, operation, management, control,
maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It is misleading to suggest that the national
road network need not be extended into a region because local roads can provide a suitable
alternative. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a
national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that the network is developed
appropriately.
E
SANRAL has indicated that it is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude
without using toll financing. The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate
needs of the society. Indeed, government policy is to prioritise social investment in education,
health, housing, etc. and such large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not
readily available from Treasury. Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation
provides for alternative funding mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such
alternatives must be explored. According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road
funding which has, over the years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South
Africa’s roads are tolled.
1.23.3.2
The EIR is partial to selective economic accounting and ‘value’ assessments that give a biased
account of the desirability of the project, as well as bias toward the ‘SANRAL preferred route’ over
other routes or options.
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject these allegations. Refer also to responses to Items
1.2.2 and 1.2.2.1 above.
E
1.23.3.3
The Project is not consistent with the SDI strategy
The draft EIAR report claims that the Project will provide “necessary linkages to local communities”
and “enhance access to the region and … facilitate development of the eco-tourism potential of the
area” in line with Government’s Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) strategy. In fact, although the
Project may result in more people transiting through the area, local inhabitants’ access to transport
services and a wide variety of resources (such as shops, schools, family and friends to which they
currently have access) is likely to be reduced due to the proposed restricted access to and across
the highway. This leads to fragmentation of communities. Furthermore many would not be able to
afford toll costs, business costs will increase, as will the costs of accessing services and
employment for those reliant on public transport.
Furthermore, although the route is designed to ensure the safety of motorists, having a high speed
national route through this area is likely to negatively affect local inhabitants as it poses a danger to
children and livestock who will be exposed to high volume and high speed traffic. The risk of this
The social specialist study included a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts of the
proposed project in terms of access, safety, etc. Please refer to Volume 3, Appendix 5 of the
Draft/Final EIR.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on tourism (including eco-tourism)
is presented in the tourism specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 6 of the Draft/Final EIR) and
summarized in Parts C and D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
Refer also to responses provided in this regard above.
42
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
occurring has not been adequately assessed and will be significantly influenced by the distance
between underpasses and bridges – information that is not available.
The claim that ecotourism will be facilitated by enhancing access to the region reveals a grave
misunderstanding of the nature of ecotourism. Eco-tourists are attracted to areas that are relatively
wild and “undeveloped”, areas that are not traversed by major roads. The Wild Coast is unique
precisely because it is “wild” and populated by people with strong and distinctive cultures. Once a
major toll road bisects these areas secondary developments along the route are likely to follow (as
is acknowledged in the draft EIAR). These developments may have a devastating and irreparable
effect on this prime ecotourism asset (particularly if mining rights are granted) and may threaten the
integrity of local communities. Tourism facilitated by a high speed national road is likely to be
fundamentally different in the nature from ecotourism; it is likely to be large-scale tourism which
benefits big companies rather than local inhabitants and has a detrimental effect on the
environmental sustainability of the area.
The SDI strategy aims to enhance access to the Wild Coast and facilitate the ecotourism potential
of the area. However, as discussed above, the Project is not rooted in this strategy, nor is it likely
to facilitate it. Any infrastructural developments taking place in the area must take into account its
unique unspoilt character and the needs of the local community. This should be incorporated into a
holistic Regional Spatial Development Plan (RSDP). This will allow for an integrated and
comprehensive approach to regional development. Any infrastructural developments can then be
integrated into a more holistic plan geared towards meeting real local, social and economic
development needs. The draft EIAR does not identify any coherent plan to ensure that any
secondary developments which arise from the Project will benefit local inhabitants and preserve the
unique environmental character of the area. Furthermore it is assumed that local authorities will be
able to mitigate negative impacts and direct development in the area without a plan to guide them.
It is clear that SANRAL wishes to be able to justify the Project on socio-economic grounds, and
indeed must if the Project is to be approved because section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa requires the State to take reasonable measures to ensure ecologically sustainable
development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social
development. However it is clear that the EIAR is misleading in its presentation of the supposed
benefits for the people of rural Pondoland and other areas and the conclusions drawn by EIAR that
the Project will facilitate the objectives of Government’s Spatial Development Initiative (“SDI”)
strategy for the area are not adequately supported.
1.23.3.4
Even though Uscata only has a mandate to oppose the tolling of the Upper South Coast portion of
the existing N2 National Highway situated within the boundaries of the eThekwini Municipality, we
feel compelled to highlight certain facts that do not seem to have been disclosed in the transparent
manner required by the National Environmental Management Act.
In some cases it even appears that in the application of the EIA process and resultant EIA report
that SANRAL and their paid consultants / specialists are ‘camouflaging’ and “hiding” important facts
rather than drawing attention to them.
The first fact is that in order to clear the way for the EIA process to run smoothly SANRAL, some
time back, declared the R61 road in both KZN and the Eastern Cape a National Road.
Recategorising the R61 road in this way thus enabled them to propose that this R61 now become
one long uninterrupted N2 Toll road. In this manner SANRAL pre-empted their intention to make
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and unbiased
assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project.
43
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
the R61 in both KZN and the Eastern Cape a National Toll Road.
Secondly, the use of EIA process in this way by SANRAL seems to disguise their true motive of
wanting to toll the N2, including the R61, all the way through KZN. The tolling of the N2, as being
SANRAL’S true intention all along, is confirmed in a Booklet published by them. This booklet titled
“Declaration of Intent 2002 -2005”, has a map on the back page showing, in red, the N2 from
Richards Bay to the Umthamvuna River as a State Owned Toll Road! Thus prior to the EIA
process, SANRAL had already planned the tolling of the N2, whereas the EIA process is supposed
to preside over the acceptability of such a suggestion!
1.23.3.5
SANRAL’s ‘policy’ of “Doing Nothing” over the building and maintenance of roads appears to
presuppose that they are the only controlling body presiding over the development of roads in the
Eastern Cape. In many ways, this stance infers that the Provincial and Municipal structures of that
area are incompetent and powerless to provide / develop roads that are adequate and appropriate
to the needs of their people. One would thus expect that once the local community has contributed
knowingly and transparently to their future needs, their decisions would ensure sustainable and
acceptable infrastructure development.
The main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the
planning, design, construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of
national roads. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a
national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that the network is developed
appropriately.
E
1.23.4
Status of the Applicant
This avoidance of real and relevant issues may perhaps be linked to the fact that Sanral would
appear to be the major source in South Africa of road design and construction consultancy work,
thereby giving rise to concerns re the report's true independence.
The specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and unbiased
assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project. Refer also to
relevant responses in this regard above.
E
1.23.5
1.23.5.1
Bias in Assessment Process
The N2 Toll road EIR is rank with double standards. On the one hand it excludes the N2 from
responsibility from any cumulative negative impacts that might result as a consequence of
multiplier and secondary impacts by excising them as ‘out of bounds’ of the immediate investigation
of an EIA process confined by practice to assessing the immediate impacts of the proposal. Yet on
the other hand, it names the development of certain secondary and multiplier effects (e.g.
development of sugar cane, timber, mining, tourism) as important components of any socioeconomic benefits that the road might bring. Yet the course, ownership and manner of
implementation of these so called benefits will themselves have huge and cumulative social,
economic and environmental impacts. Whether these have positive or negative outcomes will
depend to a large extent upon the management and planning capacity of local government, as well
as local social development and economic policies. So the EIR presents a seemingly insoluble
paradox. If many of the so called ‘benefits’ of the road depend upon secondary development
occurring of the type stated in the EIR, many of which developments will themselves have dubious
environmental impacts, then how can mitigation of negative environmental impacts be assured?
And if regional development is the prime motivation of the road, then why has the road been
promulgated in isolation, without a supporting regional development plan which will increase local
government capacity in order to cope with the increased management and planning pressures that
the road will bring? This scenario creates the impression that many statements in the EIR about so
called socio-economic benefits are little more than rosy window dressing, geared towards finding
justification for the project.
This is incorrect. The specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase
included consideration of potential indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the
particular field of study and proposed project. Furthermore, it should be noted that the specialist
reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and unbiased assessment of the
likely impacts of the proposed project and nowhere have any attempts been made to find
“justification for the project”. To illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final
EIR indicates that strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields
section between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would result in potential residual botanical
impacts of HIGH significance since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively
mitigated. Also, Section 14.1 indicates that the proposed project is likely to lead to “significant
negative cumulative impacts”.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The cost/benefit analysis done as part of the economic specialist study (Volume 4, Appendix 13 of
the Draft/Final EIR) was undertaken in accordance with international best practice. The
cost/benefit analysis has shown that the proposed project would be economically viable and net
positive regional benefits would accrue. Refer also to responses in this regard provided above.
44
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.23.5.2
No.
If faunal knowledge and floral knowledge of the area is poor as stated, the knowledge of
functioning of whole eco-systems is likely to be uncertain, which is a contradiction of claims that not
much is uncertain about projections of potential impacts.
Although species distribution patterns within the greenfields areas may not be well-known, habitat
requirements for known Species of Concern can be reasonably well predicted. It is therefore
possible to assess potential impacts on species and ecosystems with some confidence and to
take a precautionary approach where confidence levels are not high.
E
1.23.5.3
Positive impacts of tourist transits. Unless there is strategic planning to accommodate tourists then
these impacts will be negated. This calls for a strategic development plan for the region, without
which such proposals smack of an attempt to find justifications for the road.
Tourism planning for the Wild Coast has been ongoing for many years. This has, for example,
resulted in the Wild Coast Tourism Development Policy (refer to Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR for further planning-related information regard).
E
1.23.5.4
There is to date no planned area for the Pondoland Park as outlined in WCCSDP, so at this stage
any mitigation dependent upon this are based entirely on conjecture.
It should be noted the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure.
E
1.23.5.5
Many mitigations and benefits seem to be dependent upon political and institutional will and
capacity to undertake pro-active and strategic development planning. To date this has been
severely lacking in the Eastern Cape region so what is going to change?
It should be noted the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure.
E
1.23.5.6
The statement that the proposal will not be exacerbating climate change is questionable. By
promoting the idea that development is dependent upon large volumes of vehicular transport and
ease of private vehicle travel, rather than promoting public transport systems and local rural
development largely independent of large distance haulage, the proposal promotes development
that encourages vehicular carbon emissions.
Please note that the proposed project would enable road users to travel shorter distances to their
destinations than what is currently the case, thereby reducing carbon emissions.
E
‘Unlikely that there are impacts that are unknown or uncertain’. From a systems or complexity
thinking paradigm this cannot be quantified as anything other than propaganda, for any change to a
system will instigate changes to other parts which then set in motion a chain of events which in turn
generate feedback into the system and further alter it. The results of any particular intervention
therefore become unpredictable, because any one of impacts might generate any number of
effects on any other dimensions of the systems. So this is opinion rather than fact, based on
particular reductionist way of seeing the world as cause and effect, rather than in terms of dynamic
systems. In this context the EIA is extremely limited in its terms of reference, referring to the
immediate impacts of the project, but being very selective in impacts of the chain of events that the
project will generate.
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject the allegation that the specialist reports and Volume
1, Draft/Final EIR contain “propaganda”.
1.23.5.7
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Although there may also be a need for local roads and better railways the main object of
SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design,
construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It
is misleading to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region
because railway or local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all
regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s
obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
It should also be noted that promotion of public transport systems would also require the
availability of appropriate infrastructure.
45
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.23.5.8
No.
Statements that SANRAL should attempt to manage negative impacts do not constitute a mitigation
plan.
Please be advised that the identified mitigation (and enhancement) measures would form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Management Plan/Programme (EMP) which would need to be
complied with in the further design, construction and operation of the proposed project, if
approved. The mitigation measures would be expanded upon, additional issues would be
considered and responsibilities would be assigned to the various role players. The Draft EMP
would include monitoring and review methods to measure the degree of success of the specified
measures, as appropriate.
E
When
1.23.5.9
Justifying the N2 on the basis of better access without a preliminary investigation into what sort of
access would bring most benefits and be most suitable for the social and ecological conditions of
the area boarders of propagandizing or finding justifications for the road.
Please note that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and
unbiased assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project and nowhere have any
attempts been made to “provide justification for the route”. SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed
project is presented in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
Refer also to responses to Items 1.1.1 and 1.2.2 above.
1.23.5.10
Tourism promotion on bypassed towns. Mitigations suggest that tourism would need to be
promoted in by-passed towns to negate the negative impacts of reduced traffic flow on these.
Where will the responsibility lie on financing and undertaking this? Again there is a lack of planning
detail as to how negative impacts will be mitigated.
Relevant organizations and government agencies at national, provincial and local level are all
responsible for tourism marketing, development and promotion.
E
1.23.5.11
Macro-economic benefits seem to be dependent upon broader development plans without which it
is unlikely benefits will be realized. This calls for road to be considered within a broader socio–
economic development plan, which is lacking. This begs the question of why the road is being
considered in isolation of this at all?
Please refer to Section 6.5, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR for an overview of the relevant
planning-related context of the proposed project. Section 15.3 of Volume 1, Final EIR provides a
consolidated evaluation of the compatibility of the proposed toll highway with relevant Eastern
Cape regional and strategic planning initiatives. Plans/policies addressed here include the Wild
Coast SDI, Wild Coast SEA and the Eastern Cape Growth and Development Plan.
E
1.23.5.12
‘Toll fee is less than the road user benefits’. If the toll fee is excluded from the EIR then how can it
be determined that this will be the case. This is trading on assumption.
Please note that the relevant specialist reports clearly indicate that various assumptions were
indeed made where no information was currently available. These are fully motivated in the
relevant reports.
E
1.23.5.13
Acceleration of regional economic income. This seems to be dependent upon a host of other
factors independent of the construction of the road itself, therefore that the road will automatically
translate into acceleration of regional income is simply an assumption. If multiplier effects are
dependent upon growth of secondary development these negate the statement that loss of
biodiversity can be controlled. Again this calls for the need for a strategic development plan of
which the route for the road is a part.
The economic and financial analyses undertaken as part of the economic specialist study
(Volume 4, Appendix 13 of the Draft/Final EIR) was undertaken in accordance with international
best practice. Part 2 of the economic specialist report (regional developmental economic
analysis) indicates that the key factors considered in determining the “income-multiplier effect” of
the investment in the proposed road included the following: estimate of the direct tax amounts
included in the investment amount; the propensity to consume; and the propensity to import.
These were determined in order to calculate the one-off national income that would result from
the investment in the proposed toll highway.
E
Furthermore, it should be noted that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present
an appropriate and unbiased assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed project. To
illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that
strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section between
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
46
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would result in potential residual botanical impacts of HIGH
significance since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively mitigated. Also,
Section 14.1 indicates that the proposed project is likely to lead to “significant negative cumulative
impacts”.
Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
1.23.5.14
Increased traffic is based upon an assumption that traffic increase flow is going to maintain a
steady and predictable rate. Oil peak, the need to reduce carbon emissions, and the current global
economic downturn makes this a questionable assumption.
According to the traffic specialist, it is regarded as highly unlikely that humankind would accept a
significantly reduced mobility in the near future. It is also foreseen that through the use of
alternative energy sources, electric cars (for example) are likely to continue to support the current
and growing levels of mobility. Practical experience in a developing country such as South Africa
has indicated that, despite economic downturns, the actual traffic growth usually far exceeds the
predicted traffic growth if a 10 to 15-year period is considered. This is specifically borne out by
the actual traffic growth rates on South African toll roads compared to the predicted growth rates
during the last 10 years.
E
1.23.5.15
How is the toll road going to improve traffic safety without an analysis of what makes particular
area’s more accident prone than others? Is it really rd surface, or are there other factors (such as
bad driving, pedestrians, cattle on the road) at play? If these other factors play a significant role,
(such as pedestrians on the road) then these are likely to negate safety factors.
SANRAL has indicated that optimisation of safety would be one of the key aims of the proposed
project. The relevant specialist studies and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR include consideration
of safety aspects, as appropriate.
E
1.23.5.16
The EIR states that sugar and timber industries will increase beneficiation of potential positive
impacts. Yet these industries have huge secondary environmental impacts. By proposing
environmentally degrading industries such as these as important components of beneficiation and
socio-economic growth the EIA proposal that secondary impacts should be limited in order to
control biodiversity loss is negated.
This is incorrect. The specialist studies included consideration of potential indirect (secondary)
and cumulative impacts as appropriate to the respective fields of study. Nowhere has any
specialist report or Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR “proposed” any “environmentally degrading
industries”. For example, the soils, land use and agriculture specialist report indicate that the
improved regional access provided by the proposed project would result in potential positive
impacts in terms of agricultural and forestry activities. Enhancement measures are duly proposed
in order to maximise the potential positive impacts, as per accepted EIA practice. Similarly, the
vegetation and flora specialist study included an assessment of potential negative indirect and
cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed toll highway without and with mitigation.
Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
1.23.5.17
It appears that much of the justification of the proposed N2 Toll Road is based on assumptions and
predictions rather than hard facts and in-depth studies. The predictions of increased usage, socioeconomic benefits, etc must be substantiated before it can be used to justify this construction.
There also appears to be an assumption that local authorities will be able to deal with added
pressures of the road in question when the authorities barely cope with present challenges! A
Nowhere in the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR have any attempts been made to
provide “justification” for the proposed project. SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed project is
presented in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)” included consideration of
47
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.23.5.18
1.23.5.19
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
construction of this magnitude will affect a large area and it will have a significant impact on the
lives of people as well as the natural environment. Only substantiated - and well-researched facts
as well as a comprehensive public participation process should justify the implementation of this
proposal.
the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures being implemented
effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any potentially significant risks
or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of the proposed mitigation (or
enhancement) measure.
A fatal flaw in the arguments presented in favour of the road is that a toll road will improve the lives
of several million people living along the route. Firstly this fact has not been demonstrated
conclusively. Many of the assumptions given (such as that a reduction in the distance will cut down
on travel costs, which will offset the high toll fees) do not hold because for instance a large part of
the goods transported to Mthatha are brought from East London and thus there will be no change
in the distance travelled, only an increased cost due to the toll fees. The economic spin-offs implied
are thus an overstatement. The statement that the toll road is going to be many kilometers shorter
than the existing road is repeatedly used in various sections of the EIA. This is misleading as the
only section that will be significantly shorter is that between Mzamba and Lusikisiki. Thus only
persons travelling the entire distance (no estimates give of the volume of traffic), or those travelling
between the Natal border and towns in Transkei will benefit from this reduction in distance (also no
estimate). Persons travelling from Lusikisiki southwards (no estimates, but my person opinion is
that this constitutes the majority of users) will not benefit in this way at all, but will have extra costs
due to tolling.
Secondly, the social landscape along a large part of the route is that of rural, leasehold, povertystricken households occurring in dense settlements, often in ribbon development and with hardly
any other serviceable road networks. This is a very different scenario to rural areas that have
commercial farms with low density populations, or highly populated cities which have good
infrastructure to provide alternate routes. If a count of road users on different sections on the road
could be done, it is likely to demonstrate that the vast majority of road users are local, poor people
who use taxis to get to and from work, school and home. These people already spend a
disproportionately large percentage of their income on transport, and pay more for basic household
goods than the average South African due to the remote rural areas in which they live. Adding to
the costs of daily living shows a callous indifference to the plight of the rural poor who have
enormous hurdles to overcome to gain access to mainstream economic activities.
Nowhere in the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR have any attempts been made to
present arguments “in favour” of the proposed project. SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed
project is presented in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
Rationale for project not shown again. Once again the rationale is based on unsupported and
unverified assumptions of a massive increase in tourist and commercial traffic between Durban and
East London. None of this appears to have any basis in fact and is all speculative, nor does it take
into account any of the recent turmoil in the oil markets and general financial crisis which suggests
a massive downturn in both these areas. As the whole project stands or falls on this supposed
demand, these analyses need to use the most up to date information and not figures dredged from
the previous EIA five years past which even then were highly questionable and lacking in any
verification. None of the purported benefits are based on fact, only supposition of unfettered
growth, dubious accounting and possibilities, yet the huge negative ecological and social impacts
are givens if the project goes ahead. On this balance alone, the project is fatally flawed and needs
to be thrown out from any further consideration.
Please be advised that the “existing” AADT figures used in the relevant studies were not
“dredged” from the previous EIA but were derived primarily from the country-wide CTO
information, from which the latest available figures (2005) at the time were used. These were
supplemented by additional counts and surveys, which included roadside interviews and manual
counts.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
E
It should be noted that consultation with I&APs in the rural areas of the Eastern Cape, especially
in the section between Mthatha and the Mthamvuna River, has indicated general support for the
proposed toll highway. It is generally anticipated that it would result in net positive impacts such
as reduction in unemployment and poverty levels, skills training and enhanced tourism to the
region.
E
It should be noted that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR have assessed
potential negative and positive impacts which would result from the proposed toll highway.
48
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.23.5.20
Misleading rationale is invoked around the supposed benefits to accrue from the road in order to
suit SANRAL’s choice of alignments. Thus for example, by asserting that the alternative (to
SANRAL’s) alignments which go closer to existing communities will result in ‘higher risks to social
processes since larger number of communities will be affected’ is completely contrary to the
purported rationale for the road which is that improved road infrastructure should benefit existing
communities and thus the closer the alignment to existing communities, the greater number who
will benefit. This interpretation is used to justify the SANRAL preferred route from Mthatha to Port
Shepstone i.e the need to go through the greenfields section, far from the existing N2 and towns, in
order to reduce negative social impacts, yet exactly the opposite argument is then confusingly used
to justify the SANRAL preferred alignments in the assessment of the alternatives for the
‘greenfields’ section (5.2.3) i.e. that SANRAL’s alignment would be ‘more favourable’ in that it
aligns more closely with existing roads and communities. Thus, where SANRAL’s preferred route
goes close to existing communities, this is promoted as a positive; where it doesnt, then this is also
promoted as a supposed positive – a classic case of deciding on a project and then try to retrofit
the rationale. No attempt is made to analyse the need for local road infrastructure improvement and
that a reasonable alternative to a ‘high speed through route’ would be upgrading of existing
infrastructure to benefit local communities. This high handed ‘take it or leave it’ approach is hardly
what is expected of a taxpayer funded entity designed to deliver road infrastructure in the best
interests of the South African taxpayer.
Please note that nowhere have any attempts been made to “justify the SANRAL preferred route”.
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that the key objectives of the proposed project entail
“improved road access and linkage to the region while reducing road user costs and optimizing
safety and socio-economic benefits”. Alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of
meeting these key objectives were duly considered and analysed for comparison with either the
proposed project between Mthatha and Port Shepstone or SANRAL’s preferred route between
Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River. The analyses included comparisons of their environmental
(including social), technical, financial and/or economic implications, as appropriate. In addition to
considering relevant social aspects (which included estimated number of homesteads and
businesses to be relocated and community fragmentation), the comparative analysis of alternative
alignments between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River also considered (from a technical
perspective) their implications in terms of “integration with the provincial road network and
provision of access to communities on the Wild Coast”. In this regard the various routes
considered were rated as follows: SANRAL preferred route – very good; Inland Mzamba route –
very good; SDI route – moderate to poor; Coastal route – poor; Coastal Mzamba route – very
good; and WESSA route – moderate.
Other fallacious arguments (once again) litter the draft EIR and just a few are given here by way of
example. In section 16.2.6, a positive high residual impact is given as ‘improved livestock safety’;
however, since this will be a new road in an area without roads, how can this be so – livestock
safety is a necessary consideration of building a new road, but only because that construction itself
brings the very high negative impact of danger to livestock, thus neutralising this negative impact
does not in any way constitute a ‘positive high residual impact’. Similarly, as discussed above,
citing a positive ‘medium to medium high impact’ as ‘social impacts associated with improvement in
transport provision’ conflicts completely with other assertions that the greenfields route will have
the least disruption to social processes because it bypasses most communities.
Section 4.2.6, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR mentions that the first 12.5 km of the proposed toll
highway between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would essentially follow the horizontal
alignment of DR 08024, thus the statement that “…this will be a new road in an area without
roads…” is clearly incorrect.
In further paragraphs in 16.5.1, the report variously makes assertions such as ‘the proposed road
would lead to … … irreversible loss of natural capital’, and similar statements. It concludes this
section thus: “In conclusion, on the basis of the above criteria, the proposed new road is
considered not ecologically sustainable”.; yet it then goes on to claim that if ‘effective’ conservation
management can be put in place, “ the proposed project could then be considered ecologically
sustainable”. Given the dire state of South Africa’s environmental governance, as clearly spelt out
in the DEAT’s own 2006 South African Environmental Outlook (SAEO), such an outcome, by
national and provincial departments wholly unrelated to SANRAL, is far-fetched indeed. This lack
of environmental management is tacitly acknowledged in many places in the report (e.g. 16.5.2)
with references to uncontrolled alien infestations, illegal sand winnings, poorly planned and
maintained secondary roads and bridges, soil erosions, illegal exploitation of natural resources,
etc. Thus one must come to the inescapable conclusion that the proposed road is a death warrant
for the PCE and entirely in conflict with South Africa’s own environmental legislation as well as
international commitments under treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. These
inter-departmental conflicts are nowhere addressed, nor even any mechanism proposed whereby
Sections 14.1 and 16.5.1 of Volume 1, Final EIR have been updated to reflect the current
conservation status of Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld, the main vegetation type of
the Pondoland Centre of Endemism (as per the Draft National List of Threatened Ecosystems,
November 2009), and to include the recommended development and implementation of an
appropriate Biodiversity Offset agreement.
1.23.5.21
1.23.5.22
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
E
Refer also to response to Item 1.2.7 above.
E
Refer also to response above.
49
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.23.5.23
The conclusions on social impacts are equally questionable. In Section 16.5.4: Social, these are
summarised as “Overall, it is considered that the potential social benefits of the proposed projects,
as assessed along the entire route, and if enhanced as recommended would outweigh the potential
negative impacts,…”. In other words, a whole slew of negative impacts are apparent, which may be
over-ridden if, and only if, a huge and unspecified number of unmanageable and remotely possible
suggestions for ‘enhancement’ are implemented by agencies far removed and unrelated to the
road project, with no mandates, agreements or budgets to undertake any of the activities. This is
once again, speculative fiction and not one case is cited of working examples to support these
contentions; again a fatal flaw in the rationale.
Please be advised that the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure.
E
1.23.5.24
A similar nonsensical argument is put forward for the very real negative impacts to the existing
towns along the N2 route, in Section 16.5.7 Tourism, should the project go ahead and they are
bypassed (why this issue is not considered a social issue is not explained). In order to mitigate for
these severe negative impacts on the existing towns, the report suggests “ it is considered that
tourism promotion along the existing N2 could change the potential negative impact to neutral.” In
other words, in order to prevent the negative impacts of this project on these towns, the tourists will
be encouraged not to use the new road, but to use the old road instead! What then is the rationale
for the new road? This is nonsensical in the extreme and completely refutes the purported rationale
for the road.
Please be advised that the tourism specialist study has, as required by its Terms of Reference,
identified and assessed potential impacts and recommended practicable mitigation measures to
minimize or eliminate negative tourism impacts, as appropriate to its field of study.
E
1.23.5.25
Leaving aside many of the highly questionable assumptions in the economics models, let us deal
again just with the overall conclusions reached. Thus in Section 16.5.8: Economic, the report
concludes that an average annual net gain of R2,612m would ‘accrue to the country as a whole’,
and that this would be ‘generated locally’. In the same section, it states that toll income would be
75% of the total savings in road user costs. So, in other words, all the rationale in savings in time,
fuel etc for road users, will largely be taken away again by the fact that they have to pay the toll
fees – a zero sum game, yet the same section claims that the “road will be instrumental that South
Africa’s national product increases by R2,612m annually. This is quite obviously a fallacious
circular argument and if the true costs of the negative ecological and social impacts (for example,
the stated “irreversible loss in natural capital” ) are factored in, then this 25% ‘net gain’ in no way
can be used as an economic justification for the project. Absolutely certain natural capital loss as a
trade off against speculative, unproven and doubtful economic ‘gains’ (to who exactly) are simply
not acceptable today, given the dire state of our natural resources. These economic arguments are
fallacious, based on outdated figures and speculative projections and can in no way justify this
hugely ecologically and socially damaging project.
Please be advised that the economic specialist study adhered to its Terms of Reference in
evaluating whether the proposed project is economically justified, and performed the relevant
regional economic analyses in accordance with international best practice.
E
1.23.5.26
APCA objects to the fact that certain recommendations contained in specialist studies are ignored
in the Executive Summary. Whilst such recommendations seem to conveniently be considered
insignificant enough relative to the greater scheme of the bid to be omitted from the overall
findings, these recommendations are to APCA of great significance and importance. A prime
It should be noted that the Executive Summary primarily serves to summarise the key findings of
the assessment of potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project and has been
updated, as appropriate. Details of the conclusions of the noise specialist study in relation to
specific project-scale and toll funding-related aspects are presented in Section 14.5, Volume 1 of
E
agreements can be reached on resolving them, thus any reference to possible ‘effective’
environmental management by other national and provincial government agencies is pure fiction.
Basing the overall acceptability of the project on these, to overcome the stated fact that the
proposed road is not ecologically sustainable, must thus be seen as a fatal flaw.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
50
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.23.5.27
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
example is in the final paragraph of item 4.11.13 of the Specialist Study into the Potential Impact of
Noise, wherein a conclusion is reached that it would be prudent that “. . . the section of the N2
highway skirting the residential suburbs south of Durban not be tolled.” From the above it is very
apparent to the Athlone Park community that the proposed siting of the northernmost mainline toll
plaza at Isipingo is not determined so as to best meet the needs of the surrounding communities
and/or commuters, but rather to maximise income, and thus profits, to the benefit of the bidding
consortium’s shareholders. APCA believes this to be wrong as well as immoral.
the Draft/Final EIR.
WESSA is also concerned that the EIA has contradictions and unfounded assumptions. Many of
the so called secondary benefits or multiplier effects, that the road is said to support such as
extension of sugar, timber and mining, will have high environmental impacts. If multiplier effects
are dependent upon growth of secondary development, this contradicts the statement that loss of
biodiversity or secondary development can be controlled. The cumulative impacts of multiplier
effects have not been addressed in the EIA, but collectively the impacts of the development path
that is suggested by these proposals is highly unsustainable at every level. This suggests the need
for a Strategic Development plan, of which the route for the road is a part. EIA statements that
SANRAL should attempt to manage negative impacts, do not constitute an adequate management
plan. The lack of information about flora, fauna and the functioning of eco-systems in the region,
means that the ‘Precautionary Principle’ should be upheld. In light of the above, the EIA is partial
to selective economic accounting and value assessments that give a biased account of the
desirability of the project, as well as bias toward the ‘SANRAL preferred route’ over other routes or
options.
Part 2 of the economic specialist report (regional developmental economic analysis) indicates that
the key factors considered in determining the “income-multiplier effect” of the investment in the
proposed road included the following: estimate of the direct tax amounts included in the
investment amount; the propensity to consume; and the propensity to import. These were
determined in order to calculate the one-off national income that would result from the investment
in the proposed toll highway. Furthermore, it should be noted that the specialist reports and
Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and unbiased assessment of the likely impacts
of the proposed project. To illustrate this point, Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR
indicates that strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields
section between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would result in potential residual botanical
impacts of HIGH significance since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively
mitigated. Also, Section 14.1 indicates that the proposed project is likely to lead to “significant
negative cumulative impacts”.
Also, as stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations
and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance
therewith. This EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs,
including those relating to tolling, are identified and presented.
E
Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
1.23.5.28
1
Misleading assessment of benefits and impacts of secondary development
The EIAR identifies increased regional economic development in the region as a major benefit of
the Project.1 This is based largely on the idea that secondary developments such as agriculture
(e.g. sugar cane), forestry, manufacturing, construction, finance, tourism and trade will occur as a
result of the Project. It is assumed that these will create a “multiplier effect”.
However although the draft EIAR assesses the alleged positive socio-economic effects which these
secondary developments would bring about if stimulated by the construction of the toll road, it fails
to consider the cumulative negative socio-economic and environmental impacts that may result
from these secondary developments. Consequently the EIAR paints an unrealistically charitable
picture of the benefits of the Project as only the benefits are taken into account without weighing
this against the negative cumulative impacts on the environment. This is a grave deficiency in the
Refer to response to Item 1.23.5.27 above.
E
EIA Report, Appendix 5, Part H, page 137
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
51
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
draft EIAR which must be rectified to provide a more balanced representation to the decision
maker.
The absence of a regional strategic development plan to control and direct the orderly development
of the area in a manner that optimises the use of local resources and minimises the degradation of
the environment means that there is a very significant risk (in fact, a high probability) that if the
proposed toll road were authorised, it would spark uncontrolled and sub-optimal development. As
the SWC have indicated in their comments, this will compound the already high environmental
impacts of the toll road itself and:
“Without the constraints of a regional development plan geared towards protecting the interests
of grass-roots communities and the natural resources that they are dependent upon, and which
builds local capacity and human skills, a development such as the N2 is liable to result in
increasing environmental pressures on sensitive environments, leading to increased
environmental degradation at a spiral of increasing poverty and inequality.”
The risk of this occurring is particularly likely given the very limited capacity of local government in
the area (both in terms of skills and finances). Unplanned and uncontrolled “development” of this
nature will make it more difficult to achieve a sustainable development path and prejudice future
generations by degrading the environment and resource base on which the local economies
depend. This is particularly critical in areas such as Pondoland where many communities are
highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods.
1.23.5.29
The current proposal provides no alternative route to the toll road for local traffic on the Lower South As mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the existing South Coast Toll
Coast section, and will significantly reduce the connectivity of the current road system. This Road would be incorporated into the proposed toll highway – proposed construction activities in
negative impact has not been adequately assessed. Furthermore the report refers to this this section are mainly aimed at improving road user safety.
connectivity as a problem, which may be so for the toll road concept but is totally false for the local
population. This clearly demonstrates a bias in the assessment.
E
1.23.5.30
The route between Port St Johns and Lusikisiki appears to be well inland. This raises the question Noted. Refer further to responses under Items 1.1 and 1.2 above. Alternative routes considered
as to why the equivalent location is not acceptable along the remainder of the Wild Coast. The in the Impact Assessment phase were mapped at an appropriate scale to enable specialists to
answer appears to be cost rather than road quality. The failure of SANRAL to identify a suitable undertake equitable comparative assessments of their potential impacts.
route similarly outside the more environmentally sensitive areas is regrettable. It suggests a lack of
will rather than capacity, and thus impacts on their credibility. It was further noted that they
apparently did not map the alternative routes in the same detail as their preferred route, thus
biasing the assessment.
E
1.23.5.30
The report has highlighted the knock-on economic benefits of the road construction and operation. These comments are noted.
Such benefit is independent of the route, and therefore largely irrelevant. Wherever capital is
invested this will apply, and ironically the calculations used suggest that there would be greater
benefits to local communities if the longest possible alternate route were developed.
E
1.24
1.24.1
•
Assessment of Alternative Route Alignments
WESSA alignment
To my mind the WESSA proposal to deviate further inland from the Pondoland centre of endemism
so as to protect this priceless heritage from what the report describes as inevitable ribbon strip
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
A comprehensive comparative analysis of the environmental, technical, financial and economic
implications of the WESSA alignment (and other alternative alignments which seemed feasible in
terms of meeting the key objectives of the proposed project) is presented in Chapter 5 of the FSR.
52
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
development makes the most sense. Undoubtedly there are strong factors pro and con to this
proposal. Why has it not warranted any discussion in this document? This to me is the crux of the
matter. Could you possibly supply me with the reasons for the omission and the omitted detail.
Pietermaritzburg to Mthatha route
We have a perfectly good road to Durban and in fact it is far better than most other roads I have
travelled on going to the Drakensberg. Why do you not upgrade then toll the other road from
Pietermartizburg to Umtata if you are trying to IMPROVE roads in Natal.
Section 5.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR summarises the conclusions reached on the
comparative analysis of the alternative alignments undertaken during the Scoping Study.
Please be advised that SANRAL proposes to realign and upgrade the existing N2 between East
London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo Interchange), as appropriate, to provide a
shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between the Eastern Cape (and Western Cape)
and KwaZulu-Natal. A detailed motivation for the proposed project is presented in Section 3.3,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
1.24.3
Alternatives to the Upper South Coast Section of the N2
No alternatives were presented for the upper South Coast area to the Isipingo Interchange.
Refer to response to Item 1.2.5 above. Also, SANRAL proposes to realign and upgrade the
existing N2 between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo Interchange), as
appropriate, to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between the Eastern
Cape (and Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. A detailed motivation for the proposed project is
presented in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
1.24.3.1
Uscata believes that its section of the N2 should be protected in much the same way that it has
been protected for other towns such as Pinetown, where SANRAL (the South African National
Road Agency) built a completely new toll road around the town rather than 'stealing' an existing
well-used road from the town's everyday shoppers, scholars and commuters. The Minister of
Environmental Affairs & Tourism (RSA) should abandon the current toll road proposed for the
section of the N2 that falls within the southern side of the Ethekwini Municipality and replace it with
another alternative (such as a new highway road that bypasses Greater Amanzimtoti) that is
acceptable to the membership of Uscata and its affiliates.
Refer to response to Items 1.2.5 and 1.24.3 above.
E
1.24.3.2
That the Minister of Transport take cognisance of the Sobonakhona Traditional Council's plight and
abandon the current toll road proposed for the section of the N2 that falls within the southern side of the
Ethekwini Municipality and replace it with another alternative that is acceptable to its constituency.
Noted. Refer also to response to Items 1.2.5 and 1.24.3 above.
E
1.24.4
1.24.4.1
Preference for one of two alternatives in greenfields section
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry supports the alternate route which minimizes the
impacts on the indigenous forests and on our sensitive water resources, to the extent of also
considering the reduction of the design criteria of the road in order to reduce the impacts. (As was
done in the Langeni-Ugie road, where the speed limit was reduced by 20km/h, the road curves
were shortened and reduced the impact on the forest with 70%).
Noted.
E
1.24.5
1.24.5.1
Gallagher Route
With regard to Paragraph 5.2.2 GALLAGHER ROUTE... The paragraph says, "The Gallagher route
would result in lower risks to the receiving ecological environment..." What price is attached to the
ecological environment that may be impacted upon? Who apportions this value and by what measures
and scales? Given the current values - apportioned worldwide - of environmental conservation, why has
the protection of the "receiving ecology" in the SANRAL Preferred Route been discounted?
Section 5.2.5.1 and Table 5.4 of the FSR states that, based on overall sensitivity, the Gallagher
route would result in Medium risk to the receiving ecological environment while the SANRAL
preferred route between Mthatha and Port Shepstone would result in Medium to High risks in this
regard.
E
1.24.2
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
53
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.24.5.2
No.
It further says, "this route would result in no change to the current poor access to/from the Wild Coast
area..." Access to the Wild Coast area is already adequate and the upgrade of the existing roads
would improve the accessibility, at no loss to the traveling public who already traverse the distances to
access the region. The proposed 'SANRAL preferred route,' as described in the Draft EIA Report,
shows no accessibility interchanges that may improve access to the Wild Coast area, except to state
[Page 4-2] that, "District road intersections would be upgraded...," but that "Village and informal
accesses would be closed...." Further, the report indicates that the proposed route would be fenced
and effectively sealed-off to the local communities, except by means of the district roads. Now,
presumably these are exactly the district roads which already exist, so how is accessibility to the area
improved?
Also, it must be asked why the accessibility to the Wild Coast area is so very important in the area
between Port Edward and Lusikisiki, yet NO importance is given to the accessibility of the Wild Coast
resorts south of Mthatha. Why is this selective weighting of importance applied?
The paragraph states further, " ...would result in higher risks to social functions/processes since a larger
number of settlements would be affected." Given that 'accessibility' is considered one of the most
important criteria, in the area affected by the Gallagher alternative, is it precisely not, therefore most
beneficial to route the proposed N2 through the regions occupied by the greatest proportion of the rural
populace? Especially in view of the fact that the existing district roads are going to be the ONLY
accessibility points to the proposed new route?
Please note that Section 4.1 (p. 4-2) also states that “intersections (possible future interchanges)
are proposed at all locations where the proposed toll highway would cross existing district and
access roads.” Furthermore, Section 3.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR mentions that “it is
considered that such a national road or “spine” would provide the necessary linkages and impetus
to improve the secondary and local networks while facilitating sustainable economic growth along
the entire corridor.”
E
1.24.5.3
Finally, the costing analysis applied to the Gallagher alternative showing a 'negative financial NPV of
approximately R 5.475 billion ...," is selectively applied ONLY to this alternative. Why the selective
approach to the elimination of this alternative by mathematical manipulation vis-a-vis the other
options? The Gallagher alternative is, according to the Draft EIA Report, the same length as the
SANRAL preferred option, but is showed (selectively and uniquely compared with all other alternatives)
as being 'too costly.' Yet the facts are as follows: The SANRAL Preferred Route will require the
crossing of at least seven major rivers (Mthamvuna, Mzamba, Mnyameni, Mthentu, Msikaba,
Mzimvubu and Mngazi), all of which will require major bridgeworks, including the two 'high-level'
Cable-stayed or Arched bridges at Mthentu and Msikaba - reputed to be possibly the two biggest
bridges in Africa. This is compared with the Gallagher alternative which requires only two crossings
(Mthamvuna and Mzimvubu), both at higher reaches on the river systems, where crossings are far
less costly. The Gallagher alternative will require "mountain pass roadworks" over approximately ten
kilometers, in the Mzimvubu Valley (north bank). Now the cost of these road works should be
compared with the construction costs of the five additional (two extremely large) bridge crossings
proposed in the SANRAL preferred route. Why has this analysis not been done?
The selectivity of the process, by patent manipulation is regrettable. The SANRAL Preferred Route
was presented, at the outset - since the Scoping Phase - as being the only viable alternative and this
option has not been adjusted, since inception.
The proponents of the N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway have seemingly utilized the entire EIA procedures
for the sole purpose of selectively discriminating against and discrediting all alternatives, rather than
for the intended purpose of the EIA legislation, which is designed to optimize the implementation of
any new physical infrastructure. The discrimination is deliberate and selective, as described in the
utilization of cost-benefit mathematics in one instance, but comparing the "human impact," seemingly
subjectively assessed, when comparing other options and accessibility to the coastal belt with regard to
further alternatives. Why has no consistency been used in objective comparison between all
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of “selectivity”, “manipulation” and
“discrimination”. Chapter 5 of the FSR provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
environmental, technical, financial and economic implications of the Gallagher route (and other
alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the
proposed project) in comparison with the SANRAL preferred route. Section 5.2 of the FSR
provides further details of the technical considerations which formed the basis for the comparative
analyses of all the alternative route alignments considered in the Scoping Study. Technical
considerations included “key aspects relating to SANRAL’s required standard for a national road,
aimed at attracting the required volume of traffic to the road in order for it to prove viable. The
road should be of a superior standard and provide a safe, fast and efficient travel option to the
road user.”
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
54
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.24.6
1.24.6.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
alternatives? And, why has the "best" of all suggestions not been comprehensively agglomerated into
a "best alternative," to the benefit of the nation, not been adopted? I oppose the project and am
extremely disappointed in the methodology that has been applied in the whole impact assessment
procedure.
Assessment of SANRAL preferred and Coastal Mzamba alignments
WESSA still has concerns about the route between the Mtentu and Mzamba Rivers. The studies of
the comparison of the Coastal Mzamba route with the SANRAL preferred option are not convincing
and we believe that with a more detailed study of this area a better result could be achieved. It is
noted that the Coastal Mzamba route impacts on a number of source wetlands but according to the
sensitivity maps these could easily be avoided by moving the road alignment slightly to the East.
Furthermore, by adjusting the alignment of the Coastal Mzamba route to avoid more homesteads,
social systems will be less impacted. In view of these factors we plead for a more detailed study of
this section which could have greater social and environmental benefits. It appears to us that these
factors are down-played in favour of a cheaper route (the SANRAL route). The underlying
justifications and motivations for the N2 Toll road are therefore still highly clouded by the originating
controversies that gave rise to the 2004 EIA Appeal Review.
1.24.7
1.24.7.1
Inadequate assessment of alternative alignments
Inadequate justification for the choice of route
The SWC and other commentators have drawn attention to the fact that both the 2004 EIA reports
and this draft EIAR are characterised by an absence of a convincing explanation for the particular
choice of routes of the N2, particularly in relation to the green fields section. In circumstances
where there are very good reasons for avoiding the route chosen (e.g. because it bisects
communities and the PCE) it is incumbent upon the developers to provide cogent reasons why the
particular route was chosen, and also to examine alternatives. Indeed on the basis of the
precautionary principle the toll road should be re-routing away from the PCE, particularly in
circumstances where the draft EIAR fails to provide a convincing justification as to why it is
essential for the road to bisect this area.
1.24.7.2
Inadequate evaluation of alternatives
The draft EIAR should have evaluated different routes and alignment of the road and the upgrading
of the existing N2 as potential alternatives. However the cursory manner in which the option of
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Noted. It is unclear, however, on what basis the comparative studies of the two routes are
deemed “not convincing”.
E
Also, it should be noted that, in response to the concerns raised in recent conservation planning
documentation and numerous concerns raised by I&APs during the Scoping Study about
SANRAL’s preferred greenfields route in general and, in particular, the proposed alignment
between the Mthentu and Mthamvuna rivers, SANRAL used the “Quantm Pathfinder” corridor
route selection computer programme to generate possible alternative routes between the Mthentu
and Mzamba rivers. The generation of possible routes is primarily based on topographical
information taken from 1:50 000 contour maps, a geometric design speed of 120 km/h and
standards which conform closest to the G2 geometric design manual. Among a number of
possible alignments generated by the programme, the Coastal Mzamba route (refer to Figure 5.7
of the FSR) was chosen, based primarily on construction cost, energy efficiency, length and
general alignment (both vertical and horizontal), and included for analysis in the FSR (refer to
Section 5.2.5.2). As indicated in the Independent Technical Review report (refer to FSR, Volume
2, Part 3, Appendix 17), after due review of the veracity of the “Quantm” suite of programmes in
respect of possible alignments proposed and evaluated by the programme, there “appears to be
no reason to consider re-routing the toll route in this area”. Moreso, with consideration of the
presence of numerous tributaries of the Mnyameni, Kulumbe and Mpahlane rivers, etc. In light of
the above factors, and based on the ecological sensitivity map of the section between Lusikisiki
and the Mthamvuna River, it is considered unlikely that a detailed study of the area between the
Mthentu and Mzamba rivers would achieve a “better result”.
Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provides an adequate description of the motivation
for the proposed project. Furthermore, a comprehensive comparative analysis of the
environmental, technical, financial and economic implications of various alternative alignments,
which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the proposed project, is
presented in Chapter 5 of the FSR. Section 5.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR summarises the
conclusions reached on the comparative analysis of the alternative alignments undertaken during
the Scoping Study.
E
A comprehensive comparative analysis of the environmental, technical, financial and economic
implications of various alternative alignments, which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key
objectives of the proposed project, is presented in Chapter 5 of the FSR. Section 5.2, Volume 1
E
55
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
upgrading existing roads is dismissed (instead of being properly evaluated) effectively means that
the decision-maker will not be in a position to evaluate the difference between the socio-economic
impacts of upgrading the existing route and those generated by the proposed route. This is
particularly significant in relation to the distribution of the socio-economic benefits. Most of the
benefits of the proposed toll road will accrued to people who wish to transit the area at high speed
whereas an upgrading of the existing N2 (particularly if accompanied by appropriate upgrading of
other roads in the area as requested be local communities) would almost certainly generate
significantly more benefits for the inhabitants of the region. The failure to assess this important
alternative is a major failing of the draft EIAR.
of the Draft/Final EIR serves merely to summarise the conclusions reached on the comparative
analysis of the alternative alignments undertaken during the Scoping Study.
Refer also to responses to Items 1.1 and 1.2 above.
1.24.7.3
No alternatives were considered for the Natal sections. This is acceptable and appropriate for the Noted. Refer also to responses to Items 1.2.2.1 and 1.24.5 above.
sections already up to a higher standard, between Port Shepstone and Amanzimtoti, but is not
acceptable for the Lower South Coast. The alternative proposed by several members of the public,
for a greenfields section between Isingolweni and the R61 (the Gallagher route and variations
thereof) was rejected, apparently without any attempt to identify the optimum alternative, including
its consequent route to Umtata, whether via greenfields or brownfields sections. This makes the
financial assessment casuistic. Similarly the claim that this alternative would not benefit the Wild
Coast is only valid if it is taken in isolation and is therefore also spurious. Furthermore the social
impacts may be no worse than the impacts resulting from SANRAL's preferred route, however, the
information given is inadequate to assess this. This report therefore does not adequately meet the
requirement to consider alternatives, and this is a fatal flaw in the report.
It would also appear that SANRAL or their consultants have put considerable effort to optimising
their preferred route, but have emphasised the negative aspects of any alternatives rather than
trying to make them viable. From talking to SANRAL representatives, and reading this report I am
seriously concerned about their bona fides, their willingness to seriously consider alternatives. They
appear to have lost sight of the fact that their primary mandate is to benefit the community and that
they are answerable to them. Therefore they have an obligation to serve the best interests of the
residents, and an obligation to work for best practice, even if it affects profitability. The interests of
the transport industry, investors, politicians, or other vested interests, should have been
subordinate.
1.24.8
1.24.8.1
Failure to assess other alternatives
Some of the following alternatives frequently mentioned by Uscata in open meetings with SANRAL
and their consultants, which have not been taken up and investigated by them are:
• an alternative road that bypasses greater Amanzimitoti;
• a cargo railway system from the Eastern Cape through South to support the current road
network and alleviate it of heavy traffic;
• a newly designed and vastly improved public transport system using both existing and new
railway lines and roads.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Refer to responses to Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 above.
56
E
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.25
1.25.1
1.25.1.1
No.
•
Presentation of Inaccurate Information in the DEIR
False / inaccurate information in the DEIR
The Consultants in their Main Report (Volume 1- section 14-9) make the following claim: “Certain
members of the Community indicate that tolling was a means of collecting funds in KZN in order to
subsidize the construction and maintenance of the road in the Eastern Cape.” At one of the
meetings this question was put to the Consultants and SANRAL members: “If no tolls were put at
Isipingo through to Amanzimtoti would this project go ahead?” to which the answer was NO.
USCATA wants this question to be answered again and the above claim to be expunged from the
records and the truth to be published, along with this undisputable fact; “No Toll road is financially
viable unless at least 20 000 vehicles a day pass through one of its main Toll Gates”. This time this
fact must be published in the Executive Summary for the DEAT Minister and his Director to take
note off.
Please be advised that the relevant sentence on p. 14-9, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR is
included as part of the discussion on “tolling” as one of the key aspects of the “social sustainability
of the proposed project”. The relevant sentence reads as follows: “The issue of tolling was also
raised at a political level with the eThekwini Municipality taking a clear stand against the option of
tolling and certain members of the community indicating that tolling was a means of collecting
funds in KwaZulu-Natal in order to subsidise the construction and maintenance of the road
through the Eastern Cape.” Also, see responses in Table 9, as appropriate.
E
1.25.1.2
The people here on the Upper South Coast want to dispel all assumptions, perceptions,
statements and claims that SANRAL and their paid consultants have: That we object to the N2
being tolled here ONLY because of how it will affect our pockets. Do they think we are so moronic
as not to be aware of matters that effect our well being as required by NEMA i.e. air pollution, noise
pollution, our safety and our general socio- economic wellbeing.
Noted. Also, see responses in Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10, as appropriate.
E
1.25.1.3
You remark that the existing N2 and R61 are the only primary accesses to the area to date. The
R61 continues from Mthatha up to Queenstown to meet the N6 which connects to Bloemfontein.
The R61 is also used extensively by the locals who work in the Western Cape and return home for
long weekends, etc. The other access from KZN and Jhb is the R56 between Pmburg and
Kokstad. This was, for many years, the preferred access into the area from the north.
Noted. Please be advised that SANRAL proposes to realign and upgrade the existing N2
between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo Interchange), as appropriate,
to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between the Eastern Cape (and
Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. This is deemed a necessary improvement to the national
road network and is considered of strategic importance to the region and the country as a whole.
E
1.25.1.4
The statement that the new road will increase access to services such as water, electricity and
health facilities is facile. In so far as it is true it applies to any route, and many types of
development. However, provision of a road does not in itself provide these benefits. Water and
electricity are not normally supplied by road. Provision of an ambulance service is not part of the
project. These things may be valuable in themselves, if the user can afford to pay for them, but they
are not a benefit provided by this proposal. They seem to be listed purely to gamer support from the
previously disadvantaged. Such an action severely compromises the integrity of the proposal.
Noted. The relevant specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of providing information in
order to “garner support from the previously disadvantaged”. Also, the relevant specialist reports
and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provide an assessment of potential negative and positive
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed toll highway.
E
1.25.2
1.25.2.1
Significance Ratings
There are serious concerns about some of the statements made, such that this assessment of
impacts is unacceptable. For example, it is indicated that several ecosystems and species of high
conservation status will be affected, but the impact is only rated as low or medium. However at a
recent provincial planning workshop an Ezemvelo spokesperson indicated that in Natal the
remaining areas of natural ecosystems of all types are already below the level required to meet
biodiversity targets and national and international obligations. Consequently any encroachment on,
destruction, or modification of natural habitat needs to be avoided and would now warrant a high
significance.
Furthermore the statement that the affected areas are already "scattered and small remaining
patches" and thus of less significance is false, as such scattered patches perform an essential
Noted. The relevant specialist studies have considered all relevant biodiversity conservation
plans and conservation targets, as appropriate to the potential impacts of the proposed project. It
is considered that the proposed upgrades to the existing road in the relevant sections of the
proposed toll highway in KwaZulu-Natal would have negligible effect on ecosystems in these
areas.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
57
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
function as links in the corridors which maintain biodiversity through the more developed areas. The
report correctly indicates that invasive aliens and fire risk are a real threat to these remnants, but it
fails to specify that the potential impact of these, as well as of noise and light disturbance, is far
greater as the remnants become smaller and less resilient.
1.26
1.26.1
1.26.1.1
•
Legal Issues
Independence of specialist consultants
In Volume 1, Appendix A - Plan of study for EIA - page 6, in the table given under paragraph 4.2,
note the * against the Traffic Specialist Study and the small print, which reads: * it should be noted
that all competent traffic engineers able to undertake the required specialist traffic study derive a
large portion of their income from SANRAL – this affects their status as “independent” consultants
as per DEAT’s EIA Guideline Document (1998).
1.26.1.2
Having reviewed parts of Draft EIR pertaining to the N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway it is obvious that
no individual can complete a report on the entire contents in the given time. It is obvious that the
project was split between many individuals defending their own interests and professions.
1.26.2
1.26.2.1
Liability for future accidents on alternative routes
I wonder, should the toll road be forced upon us whether the NMA will open itself up for liability
claims in the event of death or injury brought about by the dangerous situation which will be a direct
a result of their decision? Might make an interesting class action suit.
1.26.3
1.26.3.1
Other Legislation that must be adhered to
In terms of the National Forest Act, 1998, Act 84 of 1998, Section 15 and 18. Licenses are
required for any trees on the list of protected tree species, which may be affected, cut or destroyed
by the proposed N2 highway.
In terms of the National Water Act 1998, Act 36 of 1998 the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway
will require licenses / authorisations for the following activities:
•
Taking of water from a water course as defined in Section 21(a) of the Act,
•
Impeding or diverting the flow of water in a watercourse as defined in Section 21(c) of
the Act,
•
Altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse as defined in Section
21 (i) of the Act.
Each point where water is abstracted for construction purposes, each stream, river or estuary
crossing, each culvert or bridge, each wetland or riparian zone encroached on, each cutting which
intercepts a perched or shallow water table is impacting on the water resources of the catchments
crossed by the highway and needs to be recognised, evaluated, authorised and managed /
mitigated.
Each water use will be authorised in relation to the property or land title on which it occurs. It is
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. Please be advised that the intention and purpose of the ECA Regulations in respect of the
“independence” of consultants was to regulate the appointment of the “independent
environmental consultant”, thus DEA duly accepted the mentioned Plan of Study for EIA.
E
Noted.
E
Please be advised that decision-making in terms of the EIA ECA Regulations will be done by
DEA, which has advised that the issue of “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the
ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority (the Minister of
Environmental Affairs). The procedures to be followed for the Notice of Intent for Declaration of a
Toll Road are stipulated in the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998. In particular, section
27(4) of the Act provides that the Minister of Transport will not give approval for the declaration of
a toll road unless written notice has been given of the proposed declaration and the approximate
position of the toll plaza and interested persons have been invited to comment and make
representations on the proposed declaration and the position of the toll plaza.
E
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that it will ensure that any other licences/permits/authorisations
required in terms of applicable legislation are obtained, as appropriate, if the proposed project
were approved. These requirements will be included in the Draft EMP, as appropriate.
E
58
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.26.3.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
General
Based on information at hand, volume 1: main report, page 6-9 indicates that there is a wetland
within the site, wetlands should be delineated in accordance with the Practical Field Procedure for
Identification and Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas (available on the DWAF website:
www.dwaf.gov.za) and apply for a water use authorization for Section 21(c) and (i) in terms of the
National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998).
Any proposed development which may take place within the riparian habitat or 1:100 year floodline
whichever is the greatest, requires a water use authorization that constitutes a section 21 water
use in terms of chapter 4) of the (NWA).
The wetland reserve needs to be determining as part of the water use authorisation.
It is not clear in the documents which watercourses will be affected and should be updated as well
as the mitigations thereof in the draft EMP. Updated documents to be submitted to this unit and
relevant Regional office for comment. This will also be required for the water use authorization.
In addition, the applicant should provide the Regional Offices with the documents/information listed
below once compiled/completed to assist with the decision making process thus allowing a timeous
response to this application:
Clear and legible detailed/locality plans or maps (not the 1:50000 scale) indicating all affected
water resources, floodlines (both 1:50 and 1:100), drainage lines etc.; and the final technical
reports such as environmental impact assessment reports (details regarding the proposed
development's effect and/or impact on water resources including alternatives and/or mitigation
measures) and a comprehensive environmental management plan.
Storm Water and Erosion Control
Appropriate measures should be implemented to avoid or minimise damming or ponding of water,
as well as soil erosion and scouring as result of increased and concentrated storm water run-off.
The storm water drainage should not concentrate flow and should have multiple discharge points to
diffuse flow, at discharge points monitoring should be done in respect of erosion control and an
energy dissipater should be implemented where needed.
Design of storm water system should be such that it is not concentrated and does not lead to
changes in the energy of the system in terms of increased volume of water or increased turbidity or
water quality changes.
The storm water system should be designed to be ecologically friendly, it is thus proposed that the
side slopes should be gentle so that vegetation (indigenous) can be established in an aesthetically
pleasing as well and ecologically sound manner. Furthermore, the storm water system should be
designed to be safe for people and small animals in the vicinity of the proposed development.
A monitoring system will have to be put in place regarding erosion-control measures (channeling)
and the stability of the proposed structures to ensure proper maintenance.
Pollution, Waste and Sewage
All waste should be classified—the mixture of building rubble, excavated/hazardous and
substances must be disposed of in an appropriate, permitted waste disposal facility to avoid spills
and contamination of water resources,
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that it will ensure that any other licences/permits/authorisations
required in terms of applicable legislation are obtained, as appropriate, if the proposed project
were approved. These requirements will be included in the Draft EMP, as appropriate.
anticipated that an integrated water use license approach will have to be followed to reduce
administrative load, but each impact site must be identified and registered for specific consideration
and adequate levels of Reserve Determinations need to be available to support the decisions
taken. Therefore this Department requires a detailed list of the information about each water
impact / water use that needs evaluation, (a proposed, but not inclusive format is given as an
example).
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
59
When
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Please note that your proposed activities with environmental considerations, such as those to be
undertaken during the construction and installation of services of the application, must be in line
with section 19 of National Water Act (Act No.36 of 1998) - Prevention and remedying effects of
pollution to ensure that the development does not contribute to cumulative impacts on watercourse.
It is recommended that written service agreements between the service provider and the
municipality must be put in place for the essential services and roads.
When
Other
It is recommended that this application should be forwarded to Directorate: Water Resource
Protection and Waste: Sub-Directorate: Local Government and Water Service Institutions for their
input and comments.
Please note that this letter and its content do not override any compliance to other legislation.
1.26.3.3
Heritage Resources are protected in terms of the KwaZuIu-Natal Heritage Act (No. 10 of 1997). In
terms of this Act:
Amafa should be contacted if any heritage objects are identified during earthmoving activities and
all development should cease until further notice especially in the Port Edward area besides other
areas of operation.
No structures older than sixty years or parts thereof are allowed to be demolished, altered or
extended without a permit from Amafa.
No activities are allowed within 50m of a site which contains rock art.
Amafa should be contacted if any graves are identified during construction and the following
procedure is to be followed:
•
stop construction
•
report finding to local police station
•
report to Amafa to investigate.
1.26.4
1.26.4.1
Failure to meet the requirements of NEMA
Given the high environmental impacts of the proposal and the lack of detailed planning around
suggested impact mitigations which lack any concrete detailed planning, the proposaI does not
comply with NEMA regulations or Constitution Section 24, and does not support the vision of the
recently adopted National Framework for Sustainable Development as a guideline for the future
development path of South Africa.
1.26.4.2
Legal Standard for an EIAR
The draft EIAR has been prepared as part of the process to obtain an environmental authorisation
under NEMA. It is important to appreciate at the outset that the function of an EIAR is to place
before the decision-maker sufficient information to satisfy that person that the procedures followed
for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential impacts of the Project have
been undertaken in a manner complies with the law (primarily NEMA and the EIA Regulations
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that it will ensure that any other licences/permits/authorisations
required in terms of applicable legislation are obtained, as appropriate, if the proposed project
were approved. These requirements will be included in the Draft EMP, as appropriate.
E
It should be noted that the Assessment chapters include the identified mitigation measures where
applicable. Section 16.7.3 of Volume 1, Final EIR summarises the key mitigation measures
applicable to the further planning and design, construction and operational phases of the
proposed toll highway, as identified in the respective specialist reports (Volumes 2 to 4 of the
Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C and D, Volume 1 of the report. It also identifies the relevant parties
responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures and additional resources required,
where appropriate. As per standard EIA practice, the identified mitigation measures will be
translated into detailed management, monitoring/auditing and reporting requirements in a Draft
EMP.
E
Noted. As stated in Sections 1.1 and 2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the application for
environmental authorisation of the proposed project was made in terms of Government Notice
R1183 of 5 September 1997 (as amended) promulgated under the ECA – the “ECA EIA
Regulations”.
E
Section 2.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the legal considerations of direct relevance
60
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
made under it) and thereby places the decision-maker in a position to ensure that the State fulfils
its obligations under section 24 of the Constitution.
NEMA provides in section 24(1) that:
”In order to give effect to the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid
down in this Chapter, the potential impact on the environment of listed activities must be
considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to the competent authority charged by this
Act with granting the relevant environmental authorisation.”
Section 24(4) sets out minimum criteria which must be met by environmental impact assessment
(“EIA”) procedures. One of the requirements is that the procedure that is followed must ensure that
the organ of state that is required to make a decision (e.g. to decide whether or not to issue an
environmental authorisation for the Project), must take into account:
(i) the findings and recommendations flowing from the investigation into the environmental
impacts (which would be contained in the EIAR);
(ii) the general objectives of integrated environmental management set out in NEMA (particularly
section 23); and
(iii) the principles of environmental management set out in section 2 of NEMA.
Integrated environmental management is dealt with in chapter 5 of NEMA and the general
objectives of that chapter are set out in section 23 which states that:
“23(2)
The general objective of integrated environmental management is to –
(a) ...
(b) identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socioeconomic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and alternatives and
options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts, maximising
benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management set out
in section 2;
(c) ensure that the effects of activities on the environment receive adequate consideration before
actions are taken in connection with them;
(d) ensure adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation in decisions that may
affect the environment;
...”
Many of the principles set out in NEMA section 2 are relevant to the decision that must be made
regarding whether or not to grant an environmental authorisation in respect of the N2 Wild Coast
toll road. These include the following:
“2(3) Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.
(4)(a) Sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant practice including the
following:
(i) that the disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biological diversity are avoided, or,
where they cannot be altogether avoided, are minimised and remedied;
(ii) ...
(iii) that the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation’s cultural heritage
is avoided, or where it cannot be altogether avoided, is minimised and remedied;
...
(viii) that negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be
anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are
to the undertaking of the EIA. Further details of relevant principles and objectives, as appropriate,
are provided in Section 6.6.1.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
61
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
minimised and remedied.
...
The participation of all interested and affected parties and environmental governance must
be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills
and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation
by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.
(g)
Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and
affected parties, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional
and ordinary knowledge.
(k)
Decisions must be taken in an open and transparent manner, and access to information
must be provided in accordance with the law.”
The interpretation of NEMA must in turn be informed by the environmental right in section 24 of the
Constitution which states that:
“Everyone has the right –
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being; and
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations through
reasonable legislative and other measures that –
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while
promoting justifiable economic and social development.”
(f)
Draft EIAR does not meet required legal standard
In practical terms, the effect of the legal provisions quoted above is that an EIAR must describe the
EIA process and indicate how it complied with the requirements of the law, and place the decisionmaker in a position to decide how to exercise his or her discretion to refuse an environmental
authorisation or to grant it subject to conditions, so that the environment is protected for the benefit
of present and future generation. In doing so the decision-maker must be guided by the objectives
of integrated environmental management and the environmental management principles referred to
above in order to arrive at a decision that will
“(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of national resources while promoting
justifiable economic and social development.”
In our view, for the reasons set out below, the draft EIAR falls short of the requisite legal standard
and cannot safely be relied upon by a decision-maker. In particular the draft EIAR:
(a) is misleading, for example it seeks to justify the Project on the basis of alleged social and
economic benefits which the Project was never designed to attain (and which are unlikely to
occur) and gives the impression that the public consultation conducted as part of the EIA
process met the standards required by law;
(b) is deficient in that it is the product of a flawed process (particularly in relation to public
participation), does not disclose or evaluate the widespread and strong opposition to the
Project among the people of Pondoland nor address many of their concerns, and does not
contain important information and studies relevant to the decision to be made; and
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Please be advised that compilation of the Draft/Final EIR has been duly informed by the relevant
requirements of the ECA EIA Regulations, the accepted Plan of Study for EIA, and NEMA, as
appropriate.
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of seeking to present any
“misleading”, “deficient” or “biased” information in the Draft/Final EIR. On the contrary, it is
deemed that the specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate and
unbiased assessment of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative negative and positive
impacts of the proposed project for decision-making purposes.
62
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
(c)
Response
When
is biased in that it consistently overemphasises the alleged positive socio-economic effects
of the Project (often based on highly speculative assumptions regarding the economic
development in the area which will be generated by the road) while ignoring or
underestimating the negative socio-economic impacts of the Project (e.g. the impacts of
dividing communities, of encouraging the influx of outsiders into cohesive rural communities,
and the environmental impacts of uncontrolled development initiated by the construction of
the toll road).
1.26.4.3
SANRAL as a company at the fore of South Africa’s environment has failed to address the
constitutionally bound issues of sustainable development and renewable energy. This kind of
development is against NEMA principles.
1.26.5
1.26.5.1
Inadequacy of EIA Process in assessing development options
EIA processes do not allow for a holistic consideration of what would be the best development
options for the region and then propose suitable infrastructure projects arising out of that. They only
allow for narrow commentary on the immediate impacts of a particular development. Determining
the best development options for a region requires another process altogether, namely a regional
strategic development plan. Any large scale infrastructure proposal that is developed in isolation of
such a regional development plan, but which will have a great impact on the future socio-economic
and environmental course of a region, such as the N2 Toll road, runs the risk of making huge
assumptions about possible benefits, especially when many named socio-economic ‘benefits’, as
the N2 EIR implies, seem to rely upon an assumption of multiplier effects and secondary
developments. Without a broader regional development plan that outlines how multiplier and
secondary effects would be both controlled and stimulated to allow for orderly development that
enables the best use of available local resources without degrading these, any statements in the
EIR about so called benefits of ‘secondary’ or multiplier effects remain in the realm of fantasy and
wishful thinking, and therefore cannot be used as justification for supposed ‘socio-economic’
benefits that the road might bring.
1.26.5.2
I question this proposed road as it does not follow the principles of development. Development
should take place following the needs of local communities and taking into account social,
environmental and economic consequences. This has been motivated as an unsolicited bid and is
flawed from the start. I therefore oppose this toll road in principle. It should not be tolled and
improvements must be made for the development of the people of the Eastern Cape.
1.27
1.27.1
•
Lack of Information in DEIR
Insufficient information in the DEIR
There is a totally independent “Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa” compiled
by the CSIR and other independent bodies and submitted to the National Department of Transport
during November 2002. Why has no cognizance been taken of this study?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
It is unclear on what basis it is deemed that there has been a failure to address issues of
sustainable development and renewable energy, and on what basis it is deemed that the
proposed project is “against NEMA principles”. Refer further to responses under Items 1.9 and
1.13 above.
E
Noted. Refer also to responses under Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 1.13, 1.16 and 1.23.5 above.
E
Noted. Refer also to responses under Item 1.9 above.
E
It is unclear on what basis there is a need to take cognisance of the mentioned document.
SANRAL, whose legal mandate is the financing, planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads, is proposing to realign
and upgrade the existing N2 between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo
Interchange), as appropriate, to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between
the Eastern Cape (and Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. SANRAL deems this a necessary
E
63
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
improvement to the national road network and considers the proposed project of strategic
importance to the region and the country as a whole.
1.27.1.1
The EIA states that secondary impacts will have a negative ecological effect. However the extent
and what these impacts are has not been specified.
Please be advised that secondary/indirect impacts are addressed throughout the assessment
chapters (Parts C and D) of Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
E
1.27.1.2
Conclusions and Recommendations presented in the EIR Chapter 16: Conclusions and
Recommendations, which should be providing I&APs with definitive overall assessments, is highly
indicative of the disingenuous attempts to obscure the hugely damaging impact of this proposed
project. Whilst virtually every individual activity assessment, for example in 16.3 assessing
comparative alignments, concludes that all alternatives will result in HIGH negative residual
impacts in terms of loss of habitat, etc. i.e. ecological destruction, the final paragraph of 16.5.1.
entitled Vegetation and Flora (in itself confusing, what exactly is the difference between vegetation
and flora in this assessment?) has the following conclusion to the opening Section: Overall impacts
on the Pondoland Centre of Endemism: “Thus it is concluded that the proposed new road would
result in potential impacts that would affect the overall conservation/ecosystem/biodiversity value of
the PCE”. It does not even state whether these are positive or negative impacts and provides the
reader with no insight whatsoever that wasn’t glaringly obvious from the outset i.e. that a massive
infrastructural project through an undeveloped area will ‘have impacts’. How does this help any
reader, let alone decision makers, to reach an understanding of the impacts on the basis of this
presentation of information it is impossible for readers to gain a clear understanding of what is at
stake, another example of fatal flaws in this EIR.
The EIA team rejects any allegations of attempting to “obscure” any “highly damaging impact” of
the proposed project. Please note that the section dealing with the “overall impacts on the
Pondoland Centre of Endemism” in Section 16.5.1 also states the following: “The assessment
has shown that the proposed new road would result in residual impacts of HIGH significance in
terms of loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, strip/ribbon/secondary development and
increased accessibility of remote habitats.” To clarify the difference between “vegetation” and
“flora” in the assessment (and as per standard practice): “vegetation” - plant communities and
associated ecosystems; “flora” - individual plant species and biogeographical origins of plant
species.
E
1.27.1.3
The report does not offer sufficient and appropriate information for large scale operators such as
ourselves who run a fleet of large trucks. This needs to be adequately addressed and we request
this to be included for further comment prior to the environmental process being concluded.
The EIA team has been advised that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit
of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority. To deal with the
levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for the
Declaration of a Toll Road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (the Act) and must take place in accordance therewith. The Act itself
specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a Toll Road. To the extent
that SANRAL fails to consider comments and representations made during the public participation
process undertaken in terms of the Act, aggrieved parties are entitled to review the decision. It
was advised that issues and concerns relating to tolling and associated socio-economic impacts
should not be addressed in the EIA, but be merely captured in the relevant documentation and
forwarded to the Minister of Transport for consideration during the Declaration of Toll Road
process.
E
However, although information related to the potential social and economic impacts of tolling
would not be used by DEA in its decision-making on the proposed project, the EIA project team
deemed it prudent to include an assessment of certain potential toll funding-related impacts (refer
to Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
64
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.27.1.4
No.
What is not apparent from the draft EIAR is the very strong and widespread opposition to the
Project among many of the communities of Pondoland. This must be investigated and addressed
in the final EIAR.
1.27.1.5
It was noted that the proposal includes provision for numerous ramp plazas, but their locations
were omitted from the plans displayed at the open days. Some of them are indicated on Figure
13.1 in the EIA, but it is clear that this does not include all of them. Furthermore no detail is given of
their layout. This concealing of information of concern to the public is unacceptable. To propose
that the plazas could undergo a subsequent EIA process, as one consultant suggested, appears to
have been incorrect and misleading, and undermines the integrity of the complete concept. It
compromised the right to submit informed comments on this proposal, and it presumes that once
the toll road has been approved additional infrastructure will be rubber-stamped. It was therefore
also a fatal flaw in the assessment process.
It is unclear on what basis the claim of “very strong and widespread opposition to the Project
among many of the communities of Pondoland” is made. Based on the public consultation
process undertaken as part of this EIA process, I&APs in the Eastern Cape, especially in the
section between Mthatha and the Mthamvuna River, have generally expressed support for the
proposed project. In any event, the adequacy of any EIA process cannot be measured against
the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the proposed project displayed by I&APs, rather, the
requirements of the relevant legislation and regulations would need to be considered.
The Draft EIR, also displayed at the open days, contain numerous plates, figures and plans
showing locations and layouts of proposed ramp plazas, e.g. Plates 4.17 to 4.21 (pp. 4-22 to 424, Figure 4.26 (p.4-51), Figure 4.29 (p. 4-54) and Figure 4.30 (p.4-55).
When
E
E
Refer also to response to Item 1.27.1.3 above.
1.27.1.6
A further concern is that the plans do not indicate the location of all the current interchanges. This
could suggest that they will not be included in the toll road scenario and will be discontinued. It is
noted that construction of the proposed Melville interchange was reportedly started but
subsequently abandoned (Intriguingly this interchange was still shown on one of the plans). It is
completely unacceptable that SANRAL should curtail services from which the public already
benefit, and the omission of these interchanges from the plans in the report gives cause for
concern. Any lack of transparency is unacceptable.
Refer to above response.
E
1.27.1.7
Although the EIA indicates that at-grade intersections will be improved (whatever that may mean)
the available maps imply that communities between Port Edward and Southbroom will be
completely cut-off. Presumably this will not be allowed to happen, but the failure to disclose
proposals to provide for them has denied the residents the opportunity and constitutional right to
make an informed decision. Unfortunately these communities commonly access the main road on a
blind rise or otherwise sub-optimal junction. For this reason the speed limit along this road is
restricted. Statements made at public meetings suggest that SANRAL's solution would not only
impose new restrictions to communities' accessibility but also incur considerable environmental
impacts in their bailiwick. The EIA refers to a "separate approval process", however the lack of
clarity seems to be deliberate. It is a matter of principle that an EIA must include all the relevant
aspects, and separate ElAs for different phases or activities on the same site are not acceptable. I
submit that the omission of such relevant information is a fatal flaw in the report.
This is incorrect - no communities “will be completely cut-off”. Please note that SANRAL has
indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder roads constructed to
provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points (refer to Section 4.2.7 and Table 4.7,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
1.27.1.8
I see very little difference in this EIA from the one presented last time. There is no evidence of any
studies undertaken to ascertain the numbers of people living and working in South Durban and
those from further south who are employed in Prospecton, Umbogintwini, and Southgate as well as
all the smaller concerns in the Durban municipal area. A lot is written about the impact on residents
in the Transkei but very little on the impact on those living south of Durban.
This is incorrect. Section 3.2.6 of the social specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 5) provides a
comprehensive description of the social context of the affected areas in KwaZulu-Natal, as
appropriate to the social impact assessment. Please also bear in mind that the KwaZulu-Natal
portion comprises about 26% of the overall length of the proposed project.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
65
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.27.1.9
No.
The possible concessions that SANRAL intends to offer are not clearly demarcated and we must
assume that they are to this end uncertain of the final toll fee and offers as the budget is not holistic
and published. This is called elitist lack of transparency.
Please be advised that the actual toll tariffs to be levied if the toll highway is put into operation
would be subject to a competitive tender process and the Declaration of a Toll Road process.
Section 3.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the likely factors which tenderers are
likely to consider in establishing a tolling strategy, including proposed discounts. These would be
subject to further negotiation, as appropriate, before they can be finally approved and
promulgated by the Minister of Transport.
E
When
1.27.1.10
As an organization that represents land rights for rural communities, we are interested to know if a
study for land ownership will be considered. If yes, when, and if no, that would be a serious
concern that conflicts with the current constitution.
Please be advised that SANRAL would ensure, before commencement of construction, due
compliance with all legislative, policy and regulatory requirements relating to land rights of all
affected occupiers/owners of land, if the proposed project is approved.
E
1.27.1.11
There isn’t much change regarding this project and things are still the way they were when we were
first informed about it.
Noted.
E
1.27.2
1.27.2.1
Adequacy of Mitigation Measures
EIA statements that SANRAL should attempt to manage negative impacts do not constitute an
adequate management plan.
Please be advised that the identified mitigation (and enhancement) measures would form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Management Plan/Programme (EMP) which would need to be
complied with in the further design, construction and operation of the proposed project, if
approved. The mitigation measures would be expanded upon, additional issues would be
considered and responsibilities would be assigned to the various role players. The Draft EMP
would include monitoring and review methods to measure the degree of success of the specified
measures, as appropriate.
E
1.27.2.2
16.7.3 (q) suggests “Lobbying for the implementation of an effective conservation plan for the
Pondoland area will provide impetus for the development of conservation areas…”. Who is this
recommendation directed at? At SANRAL? To be conducted when? And who is to be lobbied?
Many, many parties have lobbied for years for greater recognition of the unique status of the PCE,
and to obtain various protected area status for it, all to no avail, so just what exactly is this
recommendation supposed to achieve as part of the EIR? It contributes absolutely nothing to the
rationale for the project as it is totally unrelated and has been ongoing and will continue
irrespective of this project; it cannot be used as ‘support’ for this project.
Please note that none of the recommended mitigation measures were suggested in order to
“support” the proposed project. As per the requirements of the ECA EIA Regulations and NEMA,
the study included consideration of the “possibility for mitigation of each identified impact”. In this
instance, and in reference to potential botanical impacts on the Pondoland Centre of Endemism,
the vegetation and flora specialist report and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR indicate that “this will
reduce the significance of potential secondary impacts on these areas due to the proposed road”.
Section 16.7.3 of the Final EIR summarises the key mitigation measures applicable to the further
planning and design, construction and operational phases of the proposed toll highway, as
identified in the respective specialist reports (Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C
and D, Volume 1 of the report. It also identifies the relevant parties responsible for
implementation of the mitigation measures and additional resources required, where appropriate.
E
1.27.2.3
16.7.4 (h): “Active culling of problem animals by conservation authorities should be promoted”.
What on earth is meant by this? What ‘problem animals’? Problematic for who, in what way? What
has this to do with the proposed road construction? Where is any analysis for this recommendation
– has this simply been cut and pasted from another EIA conducted by the consultants?
Please refer to sections 4.3.6 and 5.2.6 of the fauna specialist report (Volume 2, Appendix 2) and
the relevant sections of the assessment chapters (Part C) and Section 16.7.5, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR for further details in this regard.
E
See also Item 1.27.2.9 below.
1.27.2.4
16.7.4 (o): “…dead or injured birds discovered below bridge crossings points should be identified
and recorded…” By who? Who will monitor this on a daily/weekly/monthly etc basis, do what with
injured birds, who will identify them and/or preserve the carcasses, etc. An absolute nonsense
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Please refer to sections 4.3.4 and 5.2.4 of the fauna specialist report (Volume 2, Appendix 2) and
the relevant sections of the assessment chapters (Part C, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR) for
further details in this regard. Furthermore, Section 16.7.3 of Volume 1, Final EIR summarises the
66
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
recommendation without agreements in place with relevant authorities with budgets, manpower
and mandates to undertake such activities – and to what end?
key mitigation measures applicable to the further planning and design, construction and
operational phases of the proposed toll highway, as identified in the respective specialist reports
(Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C and D of Volume 1 of the report. It also
identifies the relevant parties responsible for implementation of the mitigation measures and
additional resources required, where appropriate.
1.27.2.5
16.7.7. “The developer must design adequate numbers of strategically placed access points
allowing ingress and egress to the road.” What are ‘adequate numbers? What is ‘strategic’? For
whom? For what reasons? Have the local communities been allowed to decide what would
constitute, for them ‘adequate numbers’ and ‘strategic placements’? It would appear not, so how
will these be determined?
Please be advised that the identified mitigation (and enhancement) measures would form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Management Plan/Programme (EMP) which would need to be
complied with in the further design, construction and operation of the proposed project, if
approved. The mitigation measures would be expanded upon, additional issues would be
considered and responsibilities would be assigned to the various role players. The Draft EMP
would include monitoring and review methods to measure the degree of success of the specified
measures, as appropriate.
E
1.27.2.6
The consultants claim that a National Park will be the solution to much of the mitigation that has to
happen. Working in the area I have been personally involved in public meetings between DEAT
and the local people regarding a National Park and witnessed the local people’s vehement
resistance to the concept, to the extent that DEAT officials are afraid to return. In meetings with
DEAT I have learned that the idea of a National Park has been shelved. How therefore can the EIR
rely so heavily on a National Park assisting mitigation of impacts? A National Park in the area is not
going to happen.
It should be noted that nowhere does the EIR “claim that a National Park will be the solution to
much of the mitigation that has to happen” or “rely heavily on a National Park assisting mitigation
of impacts”. None of the assessment chapters in Part C, Volume 1 of the report, for example,
include any reference to a “National Park” in terms of recommended mitigation measures for
avoiding or reducing potential negative impacts. Section 16.5.1 (Conclusions: Project-scale and
toll funding-related issues), in concluding the discussion on whether the proposed project could
be considered to be “ecologically sustainable”, makes reference to the control of secondary
impacts and putting in place conservation measures to effectively protect core components of the
PCE in this regard.
E
1.27.2.7
Understanding extensive environmental impacts due to construction, use and maintenance of the
Toll Road considering the suggested impact mitigations lack the necessary detailed planning.
Please be advised that the identified mitigation (and enhancement) measures would form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Management Plan/Programme (EMP) which would need to be
complied with in the further design, construction and operation of the proposed project, if
approved. The mitigation measures would be expanded upon, additional issues would be
considered and responsibilities would be assigned to the various role players. The Draft EMP
would include monitoring and review methods to measure the degree of success of the specified
measures, as appropriate.
E
1.27.2.8
Inadequacy of mitigation measures
The fact that the proposed N2 toll road will inevitably have very severe negative environmental and
socio-economic impacts, means that it is difficult for the authors of the draft EIAR to formulate
plausible mitigation measures. In fact the inadequacies of the proposed mitigation measures is a
clear indication of the fact that it is highly probable that most of the most significant impacts of the
proposed N2 will not be adequately mitigated.
Unrealistic reliance on local government to take mitigation measures
Many of the mitigation measures rely on completely unrealistic assumptions about the ability of
local government to control and direct developments in the area. For example, the draft EIAR
states that:
“Mitigation can only take place by planning regions for appropriate development through
Please be advised that the assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)”
included consideration of the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures
being implemented effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any
potentially significant risks or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of
the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measure. Some examples to illustrate this point are as
follows: Section 12.2.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR assesses the potential residual botanical
impacts of strip/ribbon/secondary development associated with the proposed greenfields section
between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River to be of HIGH significance, in light of uncertainties
associated with implementation of the identified mitigation measures; Section 12.2.10, Volume 1
of the Draft/Final EIR assesses the potential planning/development impacts of ribbon
development associated with the proposed toll highway between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
67
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.27.2.9
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
consultation with relevant local authorities, and by the National Roads Agency providing input
into development planning at the local level.” (Page 68)
As the SWC comments point out:
“There is nothing in the recent history of the Eastern Cape to suggest that local and regional
government has either the capacity or the skills to effectively control negative impacts that might
arise from secondary impacts, and everything to suggest that the Eastern Cape authorities do
not currently have the capacity to effectively release negative impacts and thus the effective
agents for mitigation control.”
A heavy reliance on local government to mitigate the impacts of the toll road is clearly an unrealistic
strategy for mitigation given the limitations on the capacity of local authorities in the area and the
fact that there are no regional spatial development plans that set planning goals and limits for
developments along the route. It is inappropriate to make such assumptions without evaluating the
capacity of local government to undertake these tasks.
Unrealistic measures to mitigate impacts on natural ecosystems
As pointed out in the SWC comments, many of the mitigations in relation to biodiversity are based
on the assumptions that the Pondoland Park will be created and operational before the toll road is
constructed. The likelihood of this occurring is remote.
The use of biodiversity offsets as a mitigation measure in relation to the anticipated impacts on the
Pondoland Centre of Endemism is highly questionable. There is insufficient information about the
threatened flora and fauna in the area or about the availability of alternatives to “offset” any losses
to them. In any event, the use of offsetting as a mitigation tool when dealing with areas of unique
biodiversity such as the Pondoland Centre of Endemism is highly questionable.
As the SWC have pointed out:
1. the available evidence suggest that even very small parts of the PCE may be vital;
2. the impacts on the PCE will occur not only as a result of the direct impacts of the physical
construction of the road but also as a result of secondary impacts such as ribbon development;
3. since the PCE is a globally recognised centre of plant diversity and endemism, impacts on it are
of global significance and should be assessed in the context of South Africa’s obligations under
international law, particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity;
4. the conclusion that “it is considered very unlikely that the road will result in loss or extinction of
plant species” (emphasis added) is misleading given the very significant gaps in knowledge
regarding the PCE and biodiversity in the region.
River to be of HIGH residual significance.
Although the report makes several recommendations for mitigation, it is not certain that these will be
effectively implemented. "Active culling of problem animals" is likely to be controversial, when many
of those animals are feral cats or stray pets. Infestation by alien weeds of areas adjacent to the toll
road creates a specific problem, as responsibility for remediation is debatable and implementation
difficult. It seems unlikely that the concessionaire will be prepared to fund alien clearing outside the
road reserve, even though it may be clearly a result of dispersion via traffic.
The assessment of potential impacts “with mitigation (or enhancement)” included consideration of
the likelihood of the proposed mitigation (or enhancement) measures being implemented
effectively. Factors taken into account included, amongst others, any potentially significant risks
or uncertainties associated with the effectiveness or implementation of the proposed mitigation (or
enhancement) measure.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The appropriateness and adequacy of any biodiversity offset proposals will be determined by the
competent authority, in consultation with other relevant authorities.
The vegetation and flora specialist report and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR include detailed
descriptions of the PCE, as appropriate to the potential impacts of the proposed project.
The assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on biodiversity and evaluation of
the overall ecological sustainability of the proposed project are in compliance with South Africa’s
obligations under international law.
The vegetation and flora specialist has indicated that an assessment was undertaken of the
potential to cause extinction of known threatened plant species. It was assessed that the
proposed road is unlikely to lead to extinction of such species due to the fact that the known
populations of these species are some distance from the identified feasible alignments. [Note that
nowhere in the vegetation and flora specialist report or Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR has the term
“very unlikely” been used]. The SANRAL preferred route has also been studied in some detail
over a period of time and general floristic patterns along this alignment have been described in
some detail for this study. It is very difficult to speculate about unknown/undiscovered plant
species except in very general terms. For example, known patterns of distribution for threatened
and rare plant species indicate that there are significantly more of these species closer to the
coast than further inland. Also, recently discovered new species have been found within deep
river gorges that have, until recently, not been explored much due to their very inaccessible
nature. The proposed road would cross certain gorges at a few sites only and these sites have
been relatively well examined.
E
Section 16.7.3 of the Final EIR summarises the key mitigation measures applicable to the further
planning and design, construction and operational phases of the proposed toll highway, as
identified in the respective specialist reports (Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C
and D of the report. It also identifies the relevant party(-ies) responsible for implementation of the
mitigation measures and additional resources required, where appropriate. As per standard EIA
68
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
practice, the identified mitigation measures will be translated into detailed management,
monitoring/auditing and reporting requirements in a Draft EMP.
When
1.27.2.10
The proposed route will enable easy access for those negative impacts which seem to inevitably Refer to above response.
follow development; alien vegetation (including prohibited weeds and drugs), squatter camps,
dumping of waste, and crime. The report offers little hope that any measures taken will prevent
these effects occurring and given the environmental value of the Pondoland Centre of Endemism
and the previously isolated nature of the site these negative impacts may be disproportionate. It is
unlikely that mitigation will be successful in the longer term. This proposal will therefore compromise
South Africa's commitment to preserve biodiversity and her commitment to ensure a better
environment for generations to come. The Wild Coast's unique cultural end environmental heritage
is held in trust for the nation, and that trust must be maintained.
E
1.27.2.11
I have not seen any proposed mitigation measures and solutions with regards to the negative
impacts on the environment – fauna and flora. To my knowledge EIA reports are supposed to
include all negative impacts and mitigation measures for them.
Please refer to Parts C, D and E, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
1.27.3
1.27.3.1
Adequacy of Specialist Studies
The effect on the local flora, bird and animal life has not been investigated thoroughly. This is tragic
as the effect will obviously be negative.
It is unclear on what basis it is deemed that the “effect on the local flora, bird and animal life has
not been investigated thoroughly”. It should be borne in mind that potential impacts were
assessed based on the proposed works in the respective road sections (Part C, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR) while Part D provides an assessment of specific issues at a project scale and/or
in relation to toll funding.
E
1.27.3.2
The globally important industry of tourism needs to be given more consideration in this study.
Tourism is one of the worlds’ top generators of income and has benefits at all levels of society. The
rare natural assets of Pondoland should be marketed within a sustainable tourism industry.
Potential tourism impacts of the proposed toll highway have been duly investigated and assessed
in the tourism specialist study – refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6 – and integrated into Volume 1 of
the Draft/Final EIR as appropriate (refer to Parts C, D and E).
E
1.27.3.3
The lack of a comprehensive socio-economic, cost-benefit analysis that would justify the case
convincingly. If the stated rationale is to improve socio-economic conditions and tourism access,
then a comparative study investigating the benefits of improving the existing local road
infrastructure and interconnectivity in these areas should be undertaken and weighed against the
toll road option. I did not find any evidence of this line of thinking in the EIA in terms of alternative
options, which questions the foundations of the justification for the road, other than purely a profit
motive.
Refer to responses under Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 above.
E
1.27.3.4
The economic gains in relation to employment opportunities are not convincing as a basis for
socio-economic development and neither are the vague and unquantified assertions about local
economic development arising as a consequence of the road.
These opinions are noted.
E
1.27.3.5
Have in-depth studies of the flora and fauna in the immediate vicinity of the proposed toll road been
done by impartial experts? If so, are these studies available for public scrutiny?
Yes - refer to the relevant specialist reports in Volume 2 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
69
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
I am seriously concerned about the quality of information that was used to make decisions about
the environment. I do not generally think that the consultants did a bad job, but the time that was
available for them to do site visits, analyse the data and draw conclusions as to the impact of the
greenfields section, together with the lack of existing studies, makes it impossible to give a truly
balanced opinion. Very few studies in the EIA give an indication as to just how serious this lack of
information is. It would have been helpful if a confidence score could have been developed to
indicate the level of certainty with which recommendations were made. An example is the report on
soils which cites a variety of soil types along the road, but makes no mention of the source of this
information, nor the frequency of sampling and could represent generalisations that are totally out
of line. As it stands now, many recommendations are thumb-sucks which are then spinned further
to lend support to the toll road.
The relevant specialists and EIA team reject these allegations. Any assumptions and limitations
applicable to the respective specialist studies have been clearly described in the respective
specialist reports. Also, the assessment of potential impacts included consideration of the degree
of confidence in the predictions and/or the information on which it is based.
1.27.3.7
It is clear from the comments by the reviewer of the Planning/Development section that this section
is not adequately addressed and needs to be re-done.
Please note that the external peer review was undertaken on a first draft of the specialist
planning/development report, which was subsequently updated into the final draft report
contained in Volume 4, Appendix 12, taking into account the peer review comments received.
The planning/development specialist’s responses to the review comments are included at the end
of the specialist report’s Appendix 3.
E
1.27.3.8
The latest EIA is altogether insufficient/poor/insignificant with regard to the impact a toll highway as
proposed would have on the Kingsway environment in terms of traffic congestion, air and noise
pollution and property devaluation. (Be informed that council rates have in the past year along this
road tripled and quadrupled.) When intensively questioned in this regard during your “divide and
rule” exercise on 18 November at Amanzimtoti, your representative, Mr Pienaar, was at a
complete loss as to give any meaningful response to the concerns/arguments/facts raised by
ourselves as well as many other concerned residents present at the time. He lives in Pretoria and
by his own admittance does not have any personal knowledge of the specific traffic circumstances
that prevail in the specific area. He could not provide any particulars of any person, party or
business along Kingsway that he has interviewed/consulted in his so-called “research”. We could
not trace any such person or entity that has been consulted / interviewed in this regard. It is clear
that Mr Pienaar’s input in this EIA is based on theories and untested assumed scenarios. He is
light years away from the realities of Kingsway and the impact a toll plaza at Isipingo will have.
These opinions are noted. Refer further to responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1 above.
E
1.27.3.9
RRA believes that there is lack of clarity in Government policy in respect of tolling existing roads
and the manner in which unsolicited bids are made in respect of new toll road projects. The impact
on other overland and coastal marine transport modes must be considered in the process.
Noted. Refer further to responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1 above.
E
1.27.3.6
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
E
Furthermore, the source of the soils information is given in the relevant specialist report, i.e. the
Land Type Map series, information which was obtained from the Department of Agriculture’s GIS
section, based in Cradock.
70
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.27.3.10
More work is urgently required to quantify actual financial benefits of a socio-economic
value, such as:
• Development potential near to new road between Port Edward, Lusikisiki and Port St.
Johns, including domestic and international tourism impacts.
• Value and impact of sand-dune mining along Pondoland coast.
• Tolling existing road sections and cross-subsidising costs of construction of new road
section. This must include the added transport costs to communities not utilising the
new road section such as those in the urban areas south of Durban.
Noted. Please be advised that the specialist tourism and economic studies were undertaken in
accordance with their respective Terms of Reference as set out in the accepted FSR and Plan of
Study for EIA. Refer further to responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1 above.
E
When
1.27.3.11
Para. 1.3.4 of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR records that: “Specialist studies were
undertaken in the following fields: . . . economic [et al]”. It is evident that the main purpose of the
specialist economic study was to determine the economic viability, and thus profitability to the
bidder and/or SANRAL of the proposal to toll the N2; nowhere in Section 15.2 of the Draft EIR is
there any recording of the negative economic impact on toll-paying commuters from Athlone Park
or elsewhere on the Upper South Coast. Indeed, at the Public Open Day at the Amanzimtoti Civic
Centre on 18 November 2008, when APCA’s chairman asked Prof Nico Bester why the economic
impact on commuters had not been considered, Prof Bester stated that the specialist economic
report had been compiled without having had sight of either the proposed toll fees or the proposed
locations of toll plazas. APCA is of the opinion that this renders the Draft EIR incomplete and thus
irrelevant. The specialist economic study predicts in Table 15.2 a handsome IRR of 37.9% to the
bidding consortium for this stretch of the N2, but fails to record at whose expense this profit is
yielded.
This opinion is noted.
E
The EIA team and SANRAL have been advised that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall
outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority. To
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (the Act) and must take place in accordance
therewith. The Act itself specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a
Toll road. To the extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments and representations made
during the public participation process undertaken in terms of the Act, aggrieved parties are
entitled to review the decision. It was advised that issues and concerns relating to tolling and
associated socio-economic impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but be merely captured
in the relevant documentation and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for consideration during
the Declaration of Toll road process.
It should be noted that Section 15.2 (economic justification and financial viability of the entire
project and of the widening of the existing N2 between the Winklespruit and Isipingo
interchanges) of Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR includes the following statement (p. 15-5): “Road
users in the vicinity of toll plazas who would use the road for a distance shorter than that for which
the fee is calculated, will be impacted negatively. This is where discounts may have to be
negotiated…”
1.27.3.12
In general, the analysis of commercial and industrial spatial and a-spatial sectoral aspects is very Noted. Please be advised that the specialist economic study was undertaken in accordance with
broad brush and limited in scope. It appears as if the economic impact of the project on the living its Terms of Reference as set out in the accepted FSR and Plan of Study for EIA. Refer further to
standards of local residents has been inadequately addressed. Unemployment is covered but the responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1 above.
report neglected to research the impact on the working person. It is important to keep in mind that it
is existing breadwinners that put food on the table of the unemployed.
E
1.27.3.13
The draft comments in response to the financial analysis at appendix 13 in the EIR are included in
the letter dated 3 December 2008 attached hereto. They will be formally incorporated into the
specialist report. This financial analysis, as elaborated upon in the legal framework above cannot be
deemed to be an economic assessment as required by law.
The scoping report concluded that notwithstanding the then directive from DEAT to leave the
economic factors to the ‘intent toll process’, the report indicated that this would never the less be
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer to Section 2.3 of Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR and responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1
above.
71
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
undertaken. The resultant report is not in compliance with the recommendations, as inadequate as
they were, made in the scoping report, as well as included in the plan of study. See our previous
correspondence in this regard.
1.27.3.14
WESSA has been reasonably happy that the specialist reports have been professional and as far
as possible independent, however, they were always constrained by their terms of reference which
in themselves create a bias - for example by focusing on the preferred route and only considering
the one alternative route. Speaking to several of the specialists, it is clear that they had to work
from an unfairly limited mandate.
Noted. Please be advised that, in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the respective
specialist studies set out in the accepted FSR and Plan of Study for EIA, the respective specialist
studies included investigation and assessment of several identified feasible alternatives.
E
1.27.3.15
In discussions with some of the specialist consultants it is clear that their terms of reference were
restricted geographically. In consequence, for example, no evaluation is given for the impact of the
road where it encounters the Impenjati and Red Desert Nature Reserves. The latter is of particular
concern as the road will traverse the reserve, and the potential conflict with wildlife may be
significant. Similarly, the hydrological studies were confined to the Eastern Cape, and no
assessment has been presented for the impact of road upgrades and increased traffic on drainage
systems in the Southern Natal sections. These are examples only, but the omissions are almost
ubiquitous. It is clear that the environmental assessment for sections of the Lower South Coast of
Natal is minimal and inadequate to meet normal requirements.
Please be advised that specialists have identified and assessed potential impacts, as appropriate,
in light of the proposed construction works along the various road sections. The proposed
construction activities in KwaZulu-Natal would take place within the existing road reserve, except
for the proposed Adams Road Interchange and the proposed mainline toll plazas at Park Rynie
and Isipingo. Thus, based on the findings of the specialist studies, the potential impacts on
biodiversity in this section of the proposed toll highway would be minimal compared to the
potential biodiversity impacts associated with the greenfields sections in the Eastern Cape.
E
1.27.3.16
The Wild Coast section of the route is known to be controversial, for several reasons. It is accepted
that the new road will improve access for visitors. However, this is not in itself necessarily beneficial.
Better access for tourism may in itself have severe negative impacts, including a degradation of that
sense of place which is the key factor in this area's attraction for tourists. Furthermore it is the local
road system that is the predominant restriction in this area, and this proposal does not alter that
situation. The report does indicate that control of development in this area is currently inadequate
due to lack of capacity. Indirect impacts apparently have only been considered where they favour
the road, however, the capacity of the area to accommodate development and the control of this
development are also of concern. The negative aspects of indirect impacts need further and
unbiased study.
Please be advised that the respective specialist studies included consideration of potential
indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the particular field of study and proposed
project. Refer, for example, to Section 3.2 of the tourism specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix
6).
E
1.27.3.17
As an example of the strange approach to this study, it was stated that the impact of lighting at the
Mthentu toll plaza would be reduced when the local communities got electric lights in their homes.
This assumes that the local community will not go to bed at night, that looking at the night sky is not
part of their culture, and that they can afford electricity. Clearly the assessment did not adequately
consider the culture of the receiving environment. A similar problem occurs with the application of
the same noise level standard in a relatively silent rural area as is applied in the developed areas at
Isipingo. This is probably inappropriate, and the relative impact would certainly be far greater and
more stressful to the rural community, as well as to the natural receiving environment.
This highlights a key factor in the assessment process. All impacts must be related to a "baseline",
an indication of the relative change as well as the acceptable limits, and this "baseline" must be
appropriate for the specific locality. The use of national norms and standards requires careful
evaluation if the impact assessment is to be relevant. This applies to all aspects of the
assessments, and in this report there seems to be a scattering of comments that do not meet this
requirement.
According to the visual specialist, the specialist report stated that a toll plaza within an unlit night
landscape would act as a beacon at night and be in contrast to the unlit nightscape. It is
reasonable to assume that areas without electricity would at some point in the future become
electrified and one can also assume that there would be people within the local communities that
could afford electricity as occurs throughout the rest of the rural communities in South Africa. It is
incorrect to assume, as did the author of the comment raised, that rural communities will remain
poor and unable to afford electricity. It is in this regard that an assumption can be made that
sometime in the future the proposed toll plaza would not remain the only lit structure in the
landscape
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
As stated in the visual specialist report, there are no national or international visual norms to be
used as a “baseline” since visual and aesthetic interpretations are based on perceptions. In
contrast, the noise specialist has indicated that the noise impact assessment was based on
quantitative data and objective procedures in line with the World Health Organisation Guidelines.
72
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
The impact of measured or predicted noise levels is assessed by comparing these with typical
rating levels for noise in districts – including rural districts (refer to SANS 10103, Table 2 in
Section 2.3 of the noise specialist report). Thus, indeed related to a baseline.
When
There is a very close correlation between the “typical levels” in SANS 10103 and a community’s
subjective response to noise in the respective districts. For example, if the night-time level of
noise from road traffic does not exceed 35 dBA outdoors in a rural district it is improbable that the
road noise will be intrusive to the rural community, if at all noticeable. Refer also to Section 2,
Section 3.4.1 and Section 3.5.1 of the noise specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 8).
1.27.3.18
This report has not considered the critical issue that "better roads" means not just better surfaces Judgement on the ethics, morality or constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the
but also better accessibility for the economically challenged. For example, the proposal for scope of the EIA process and should rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
additional tolls along the road between Port Edward and Durban has implications for the
constitutional rights of the communities along the route. Public consultation on national and
provincial legislation, and other statutory consultation, is normally hosted in Durban or
Pietermaritzburg. The cost of attending these hearings is already considerable due to the increase
in travelling expenses. As a result few members of the public from the South Coast are
economically able to exercise this fundamental democratic right. The imposition of tolls will further
restrict public consultation, and degrade our democracy. This cannot be tolerated.
1.27.3.19
The EIA has failed to be toll price specific. Real studies related to social and economic can
therefore not be done. These two studies are a failure, flawed and therefore null and void.
Noted. Refer further to responses to Items 1.8.1.1 and 1.9.3.1 above.
E
1.27.3.20
The EIA has failed to address how SANRAL will deal with increased trucking and taxi usage on
secondary and tertiary roads. Roads will undergo damage and increased congestion as people try
to escape the added cost.
According to SANRAL, a large number of traffic counting stations on possible alternative routes
have been installed for monitoring purposes. The actual impact of any diverted traffic can
therefore be monitored and assessed over time once the proposed toll road is in operation (if
approved) and the quantum of any significant negative impacts can therefore be determined.
SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur. In addition, as part of
any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with the provincial and
local authorities so that overloading of heavy vehicles and and the diversion of heavy vehicles
because of such overloading can be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this
impact.
E
1.27.4
1.27.4.1
Failure to consider other major regional developments and their cumulative impacts
The draft EIAR does not assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts arising from the
cumulative impact of the N2 and the major mining project which has been authorised at Xolobeni.
This is curious given the fact that much is made of the fact that the toll road will stimulate a range of
other secondary economic activities. It seems reasonable to assume that the authorisation of the
proposed N2 will have a significant impact on the viability and functioning of the proposed mining
activities, and vice versa. Indeed there is evidence that the construction of the toll road will have a
major impact on the financial viability of the mining operations. In short the fates of the Xolobeni
mining and N2 toll road projects are interlinked and this important fact is not even mentioned. The
cumulative socio-economic and environmental impacts of these projects, and should be
investigated and reported upon in the EIAR.
The specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase included consideration of
potential indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the particular field of study and
proposed project. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices
of the Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description
and strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other
land use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
Please be advised that the discussion (on “The Xolobeni Mineral Sands Mining Proposal”) in
Section 6.5.1 includes the following: “…it is likely that the new road would serve as an important
transport route for the mining activity…However, SANRAL has emphasised that the proposed N2
Wild Coast Toll Highway is in no way linked to, or independent on, the Xolobeni mining proposal.”
73
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.27.4.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
One of the shortcomings of the Environmental Impact Assessment system carried out in South
Africa is the failure to consider cumulative (combined) impacts of all proposed development in an
area. The national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) released a draft
report, Review of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the EIA System in South Africa in November
2008, which highlights this concern and recommends that there should be a stronger emphasis on
indirect and cumulative impacts and on sustainability issues. The Draft EIR on the proposed N2
Wild Coast Toll Highway notes the possibility of indirect and cumulative impacts associated with
the proposed highway, but limits discussion to ribbon development, increased access to estuaries,
etc. associated with the road itself. The Draft EIR fails to consider the further impacts on the
sensitive vegetation and aquatic ecosystems of other major proposed developments in the
Pondoland area, such as the proposed mining at Xolobeni, which would further threaten vegetation
types, fauna and aquatic ecosystems, underscoring the lack of an integrated and holistic
approach.
This is incorrect. The specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase
included consideration of potential indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the
particular field of study and proposed project. Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006)
undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development
Project for a detailed description and strategic assessment of the receiving environment of the
Wild Coast in terms of various other land use options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism,
mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
1.28
1.28.1
•
Assessment of Alternative Toll Plaza Positions
It does not appear that the EIR discusses the possibility of an alternative location of the Isipingo
mainline toll plaza. There is a brief mention in the Planning/Development Report of the fact that the
business sector would like the mainline toll plaza to be located south of Park Rynie, but this is not
taken up seriously in the EIR. It should be a key mitigation measure.
1.28.2
My suggestion is to put the toll gate at Kingsburgh / Warner Beach area. We are so little compared
to the traffic coming from further south.
1.29
1.29.1
Environmental Management Plan
A copy of an Environmental Management Plan that outlines mitigation of impacts on the water
resource during construction and operational phases must be made available to the East London
office.
1.29.2
1.29.3
When
E
It should be noted that Sections 14.1 and 14.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, in particular,
include consideration of the ecological sustainability of the proposed project, based on the
evaluations in this regard undertaken as part of the vegetation and flora and aquatic ecosystems
specialist studies.
Section 3.5.2 (Table 3.4), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provides information on the seven
proposed toll sections of the proposed toll highway. It should be noted that the “Hibberdene to
Winklespruit” toll section’s associated mainline toll plaza is “Park Rynie” while the “Winklespruit to
Isipingo” toll section’s associated toll plaza is “Isipingo”. The alternatives considered “feasible” for
further investigation in the Impact Assessment phase were presented in the accepted FSR and
Plan of Study for EIA.
E
Refer to response provided above.
E
This will be provided, as appropriate.
E
Section 16.7 Recommendations, contains tens of points which deal with a confusing array of policy
issues through to detailed minor construction issues; these latter should all form part of any half
decent EMP on any road construction project and need not be addressed here.
Section 16.7.3 of Volume 1, Final EIR summarises the key mitigation measures applicable to the
further planning and design, construction and operational phases of the proposed toll highway, as
identified in the respective specialist reports (Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C
and D of the report. It also identifies the relevant parties responsible for implementation of the
mitigation measures and additional resources required, where appropriate. As per standard EIA
practice, the identified mitigation measures will be translated into detailed management,
monitoring/auditing and reporting requirements in a Draft EMP.
E
16.7.11 Dust Suppression: b)”….roads remain sufficiently moist throughout the construction period
to suppress dust.” Where will the water come from? How will this impact be managed, both water
offtakes locally and runoff silt loads? Again, this is simply good management of a construction
project and should form part of any construction EMP conducted by SANRAL, surely; it has no
place here – the EIR is supposed to provide information to allow an informed decision on a
proposed project, not on the environmental management of the construction activities.
Refer to response provided above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
74
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
1.29.4
No.
We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 10 November 2008 and this follows the
inspections that were undertaken by our office in sites mentioned on the Environmental
Management Report aimed at checking status of Natural Resources and ensuring their maximum
protection in accordance with Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983.
The comments from Directorate Land Use and Soil Management are as follows. As construction
will result to great disturbances which may impact negatively on Natural Resources like wetlands,
riparian areas, indigenous vegetation and also increase the rate of invasion by Category 1 Alien
Weeds as observed during the site inspections. We recommend that the following measures are
taken into serious consideration.
• Appropriate locating topsoil stockpiles and keep them grassed to protect it from being eroded.
• Implementation of soil erosion and sediment control measures.
• Bridges and culverts must be constructed in such a way as to minimise impacts on wetland,
streams and riparian areas.
• Revegetation of disturbed areas must be undertaken with site indigenous species.
• A long term Weed Control Plan must be developed for the control of Alien plants in road
reserves and in disturbed areas which will assist in avoiding establishment, spreading and
redistribution by any form e.g. wind, water, vehicles and people working on sites.
• Strategy for ongoing monitoring should be developed in ensuring that negative impacts to
natural resources are minimized.
The implementation of procedures as stipulated on your Environmental Management Report would
be of utmost importance as it ensures the great protection of Natural Resources.
Noted. These recommendations have been incorporated into the “Recommendations” section of
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
E
1.29.5
All conditions and mitigations proposed in the Environmental Report (ER) prepared on behalf of
the development must be adhered to;
As indicated in the ER, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be drafted,
agreed upon and adhered to;
Noted. Refer to responses in this regard provided above.
E
1.30
1.30.1.1
Flawed EIA Process
Given the large number of public concerns that have still not been addressed in this EIR, SWC
maintain the 2008 EIA process is still fundamentally flawed and has not met the requirements of
NEMA, Section 24 of the Constitution, or the vision for future development outlined in the NFSD.
SWC repeat that we believe the EIA process is fundamentally flawed because the underlying
process and conditions that gave rise to the proposal are unsound and undemocratic and was
formulated in isolation of a regional development plan. Statements in the EIR that a regional
development plan should be formulated to allow beneficiation of secondary impacts boost this
argument. However, SWC contends that a holistic regional development plan should have been
formulated before it was decided what infrastructure developments were most suitable for the
region. Trying to argue for a regional development plan at this late stage smacks of a desperate
attempt to provide justification for the N2 Toll road.
It is SWC contention that what the ‘Wild Coast’ area needs is not a Toll road, but improved local
road infrastructure, much increased capacity building at local government level, including much
increased accountability on the part of local government officials in meeting the real needs of their
constituents, and an investment in the development of local human skills and local economies at a
grassroots level. For example, by the stimulation of local markets, traditional and organic food
security and agri-ecology schemes, and assisting local communities to develop small business
Refer to responses to Items 1.1.1 and 1.8.1.1 and under Item 1.9 above. Also, the 2004 Appeal
Review report includes the following statement (p.18): “That there was no proper prior
development planning for the region obviously is not itself a reason to reject the application. This
would lead to the absurd situation where no development could be approved without such prior
planning.”
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
75
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
schemes that work in conjunction with the limits of the natural resource base. These would go far
further in stimulating local rural development than a Toll road, whose primary purpose, as stated in
the EIR, is to facilitate inter –city linkages.
SWC asserts that, given the global importance of the rich but threatened bio-diversity of the region,
and the cultural heritage of local indigenous communities, the conservation of these should be of
prime consideration in any regional development planning.
Apart from failing to meet local needs for improved local infrastructure and services, until and if
such time as regional and local nodal strategic planning, as outlined in the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Plan, is actually implemented, no decisions on a highspeed through route can be made which will not compromise the various tenets of sustainable
development outlined in the various national strategic planning documents and legislation listed
above.
1.30.1.2
1.30.1.3
This response will attempt only to outline the major concerns regarding the overall project, the
overall approach to, and rationale for the project and specifically as these pertain to the so-called
‘greenfields’ section from Mthatha to Port Shepstone. I will not attempt to go into further detail of
the whole EIA report once again - all of the process and content issues have been raised many
times previously – during the multiple steps of the first EIA process, by the Independent Review of
the 1st EIA, during the Scoping Phase of the 2nd EIA and now again in commenting on the draft
EIR - and consistently either ignored or continual fallacious arguments put forward to try and justify
the proposals. To support this I have attached the formal comment compiled by myself and
submitted on behalf of the EWT on the FSR – this is self-explanatory in supporting the above
contention. In addition, no responses are ever received by I&APs to the concerns raised in these
responses submitted – for example, the SANRAL project website does not contain the listed
Appendix 14: Comments and Responses on DSR, no similar document is available for the FSR,
and neither is the listed Appendix 15: Minutes of Workshops.
To reiterate - this draft EIR again raises the question of why we, the South African public, must
keep raising the same issues and keep having them ignored – as stated many times, by many
I&APs, this process makes a mockery of SA’s environmental legislation, and in particular the
NEMA and the Constitution and it should be curtailed immediately – this project is, from inception,
and continues to be, fatally flawed on a number of counts which have been repeatedly raised and it
is time that the DEAT put an end to this waste of taxpayers money and prevailed upon the Dept of
Transport to work with the EC provincial government to develop a suitable transport infrastructure
plan for the province as a whole, as part of South Africa’s ‘developmental state’ strategic planning.
Unsolicited, piecemeal, ad hoc business venture projects which are proposed in a strategic vacuum
(please see Dept of Transport strategic corridors detail provided in attached comment on FSR)
have no place in South Africa today.
The specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of consistently ignoring relevant issues or
continually putting forward “fallacious arguments” to “try and justify the proposals”. The
mentioned FSR documentation was duly made available as per the respective notifications sent
to I&APs during the various stages of the EIA process. The respective reports were also made
available to I&APs on request.
Overall societal benefit not shown. New thinking and understanding of the science of Impact
Assessment (IA) is not included in this EIR. Much has changed in the science and practice of IA in
the intervening years and it appears that SANRAL and the EIA consultants are not keeping up to
speed with these developments. Nowhere in the world where EIA is legislated for is it acceptable
any longer to look at projects in isolation, as is being done here, with all of the associated
cumulative impacts of ribbon development ignored, as well as the negative impacts on the
bypassed towns. Even the World Bank, in its own recent review of Bank-funded projects,
acknowledges the failure of the EIAs conducted on bank-funded projects to ‘adequately take into
The specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase included consideration of
potential indirect and cumulative impacts, as appropriate to the particular field of study and
proposed project. For example, the vegetation and flora and planning/development specialist
studies, amongst others, explicitly assessed potential impacts associated with “ribbon
development” while the tourism and economic specialist studies, amongst others, explicitly
assessed potential impacts on bypassed towns. These assessments are summarized in
Chapters 14 and 15, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as appropriate.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
Refer further to relevant responses in this regard provided above, in particular the responses
under Items 1.8 and 1.9.
76
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
consideration the broader aspects of ecological and social impacts beyond the project area’. This is
not an infrastructure project within an already built-up or degraded area, it is one that will slice
completely through an area almost untouched by 20th century infrastructure and as such the
assessment cannot be confined to the actual physical strip alone but must include the full,
cumulative assessment for the region as a whole. This requires that any consideration of transport
infrastructure must be done strategically and not via an unsolicited, unplanned project.
When
Refer also to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
1.30.1.4
Significant new scientific findings on environmental status on both global and national scales since
the 1st EIA have not been considered. For example, the 2005 UN Millennium Assessment, South
Africa’s National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (2005) and, most importantly the 2006 South
African Environmental Outlook (SAEO), and the National Framework for Sustainable Development
2007, all of which contain significant information, policy directives and findings which should have
been considered in this assessment; if they had, they would show that the project is fatally flawed
in that we can no longer tolerate guaranteed ecological and social trade-offs for uncertain,
unverified and speculative economic ‘benefits’.
Please be advised that Chapter 6, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR includes discussion on relevant
legal, planning and policy considerations as appropriate to the EIA and proposed project. In
particular, Section 6.2.6 indicates the following: “Amongst the nine broad geographic priority
areas identified for terrestrial biodiversity conservation action in the National Spatial Biodiversity
Assessment (Driver et al, 2005), two occur within the study area, namely “MaputalandPondoland” (located in KwaZulu-Natal and north-eastern part of the Eastern Cape) and “Albany
Thicket and Wild Coast (located in the Eastern Cape)…” Also, consideration of the “National
Framework for Sustainable Development” (2008) does not show that the proposed project is
fatally flawed since the Framework necessarily serves to provide a broad, conceptual framework
for consideration of sustainable development and specifically aims to: “identify key short, medium
and long-term challenges to our sustainable development efforts; set the framework for a
common understanding and vision of sustainable development; and define strategic focus areas
for intervention”. Regarding the latter, the Framework lists the following five “strategic priority
areas for action and intervention…”: enhancing systems for integrated planning and
implementation; sustaining our ecosystems and using natural resources efficiently; economic
development via investing in sustainable infrastructure; creating sustainable human settlements;
and responding appropriately to emerging human development, economic and environmental
challenges. Furthermore, South Africa’s environmental legislation provides for the identification of
activities which may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment – these listed
activities may not be commenced or undertaken without the necessary
authorisation/licence/permit. The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to
the application for authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice
R1183 of 5 September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as
amended, have been followed in the EIA process.
E
1.30.1.5
Once again, this EIR is a poorly masked attempt to justify what is obviously a business proposition
for a costly toll road which has already cost the SA taxpayer millions in consultancy fees and will, if
it goes ahead, not only cost taxpayers billions more, but also add significant negative social and
ecological impacts in a region in dire need of socio economic upliftment. This project needs to be
rejected once and for all by the DEAT, as no amount of window-dressing is going to make it a
viable project in the interests of the country as a whole, nor the local Pondoland communities. What
these communities need, by their own admissions, is improved local transport infrastructure,
without having to suffer negative ecological and social consequences as a result – nowhere does
this project cater for these needs.
The specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of attempting to “justify what is obviously a
business proposition”.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Although there may also be a need for local roads the main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It is misleading to
suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region because railway or
local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa
are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that
the network is developed appropriately. In this case, SANRAL proposes to realign and upgrade
the existing N2 between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo Interchange),
as appropriate, to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between the Eastern
77
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Cape (and Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. This is deemed a necessary improvement to the
national road network and is considered of strategic importance to the region and the country as a
whole.
1.30.1.6
I believe that the process is flawed for the following reasons :•
Alternative options were not adequately assessed.
•
Insufficient public participation.
•
Alternative road routings further inland were not adequately assessed.
I believe that the environmental impacts are the most important impacts that the report fails to
prioritize for the following reasons :•
To protect and isolate the natural beauty of Pondoland.
•
Consider the long-term nature-based tourism potential.
•
To protect the Pondoland Centre of Endemism.
•
To protect this International Environmental Hotspot.
•
To honour South Africa’s commitment to International Biodiversity Conservation
conventions and our own Biodiversity Act.
Refer to responses provided under Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 above. The specialist studies
undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase included consideration of potential impacts, as
appropriate to the particular field of study and proposed project. See also responses to relevant
issues/concerns provided in Table 2.
E
1.30.1.7
APCA does not object to the proposal to toll the N2 route between Durban and East London in
general, but objects in the strongest possible terms to the proposed siting of any toll plazas within
the boundaries of the eThekwini Municipality.
APCA cannot find any benefit of having that section of the N2 freeway that passes through Athlone
Park tolled. To the contrary, APCA can only find negative impacts forthcoming from the current
proposal to toll this section of the N2.
In light of this, as well as the rejection of certain findings within the Draft EIR and the defective
public consultation process, Athlone Park Civic Association objects to any proposal to accept the
Draft EIR and the furtherance of the process seeking authorization to toll the N2 freeway anywhere
near Athlone Park or vicinity.
Noted. Refer further to relevant responses under Items 1.8 and 1.9 above.
E
1.30.1.8
I would like to comment on the proposal and plans to build the N2 Wild Coast Toll Road, my main
area of concern is the lack of adequate focus of research and results in the EIA. In particular the
secondary and cumulative impacts have not been properly dealt with or addressed.
It is unclear on what basis it is deemed that “the secondary and cumulative impacts have not
been properly dealt with or addressed”. Potential secondary/indirect and cumulative impacts are
addressed throughout the assessment chapters (Parts C and D), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR,
as per the findings of the respective specialist studies, as appropriate.
E
1.30.1.9
The current toll road proposal is not only immoral and unjust, but has many flaws and
inconsistencies built into an EIA process that is ineffective and inadequate. Inevitably, this process
can result in 'bad' decisions where the cliché of "a square peg being shoved into a round hole"
becomes an inadvertent reality. Uscata is of the opinion that the section of road it has a mandate
to protect is in danger of being treated in this manner.
This opinion is noted.
E
Having given much consideration to this proposal, and after discussions with my branch members
and others, I believe that the proposal should not be approved in its current form.
My reasons are based on both the shortcomings of the public participation process and the Draft
EIA, and on conflicting statements I have received from the proponents and their consultants.
See relevant responses in Table 2 regarding the “public participation process”. It should be borne
in mind that the feasible alternatives considered in the Impact Assessment phase were identified
in the accepted FSR and Plan of Study for EIA. Also, potential impacts were assessed based on
the proposed works in the respective road sections (Part C, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR) while
1.30.1.10
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Judgement on the ethics, morality or constitutionality of legislation is considered outside the
scope of the EIA process and should rather be channelled through the relevant judicial structures.
78
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.30.1.11
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Specifically, the report deals with very limited alternatives, has only superficially considered the
impacts on some sections of the route, especially between Port Edward and Durban, and has failed
to demonstrate the specific necessity for the proposed route. It is accepted that there is a need for
a better national road in the Eastern Cape, but that does not in itself justify the SANRAL preferred
route or their preferred alternative.
The proposed route south of Port Edward will have a major impact on the natural environment but
at best only a limited benefit for the social and economic needs of the region which it traverses. Its
only real merits are that it requires a lower capital outlay than the alternatives, and it greatly
reduces the number of significant inclines compared to the current routes of the N2 and R61. Most
of the other claimed benefits equally apply to any route. However by effectively bypassing most of
the current development nodes in the Eastern Cape this proposal will have a significant negative
economic impact on them.
Furthermore it has no apparent benefits for the Lower South Coast of Natal, for which the current
roads are adequate, and by introducing additional tolls will negatively impact the areas'
communications and economics. The lack of specifics at the open days, and the failure to
adequately investigate alternative proposals for this section is a fatal flaw in the process.
Finally I must point out that the report is apparently not significantly different from the previous
report which was rejected on grounds of possible impropriety. Although the data is apparently
accurate, its selection and interpretation could be biased. CCA have admitted to making extensive
use of the previous report, which is in itself not unwise, but they have accepted most of the
previous findings without question, despite those findings being intrinsically questionable, and
therein lies the potential for bias. SANRAL's refusal to consider alternative routes and scenarios in
the Natal section is reflected in the report and confirms this bias. Some of the terms of reference of
the consultants were also inappropriately restricted. CCA do not appear to have approached this
study from the standpoints of best practice and optimum benefit to the community but rather how
best to enable SANRAL to justify their preferred route, maximise profits, and counter the valid
objections. Although this report appears superficially to be an impact assessment, it is more
appropriate to describe it as a feasibility study and a polemic in favour of the proposal. Whilst I
have no reason to believe that CCA have a financial interest in the result, the influence on this
report of SANRAL is such that I do not believe it constitutes an independent assessment.
Part D provides an assessment of specific issues at a project scale and/or in relation to toll
funding. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national
road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
In this case, SANRAL proposes to realign and upgrade the existing N2 between East London
(Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo Interchange), as appropriate, to provide a shorter,
more cost efficient and safer road link between the Eastern Cape (and Western Cape) and
KwaZulu-Natal. This is deemed a necessary improvement to the national road network and is
considered of strategic importance to the region and the country as a whole.
The need for infrastructure in the Eastern Cape is indisputable. Meeting that need is a financial,
social, and environmental challenge. The traditional way of implementing development by inserting
first world infrastructure into a third world scenario may contribute to the solution but is not the
whole answer and may not be the best response. The objective of an EIA should be to assess the
real need in the project area, identify the optimal response, and establish whether the proposal
conforms to that optimum by highlighting both the relevance of and the pitfalls in the proposal, and
by assessing their short and longer-term significance. If necessary the EIA should indicate the need
for an alternative scenario. The primary purpose must be to uplift society without sacrificing
fundamental values and without jeopardising assets, resources, cultural and natural heritage, and
the potential for our future welfare.
The emphasis on mitigation and damage limitation, to the exclusion of identifying no-go areas,
vulture colonies excepted, suggests that CCA had an unwritten mandate to facilitate the
development. This would severely compromise their ability to present an unbiased report. Despite
this I consider the specialist reports, with some exceptions, to be of a high standard, subject to the
limitations in their terms of reference.
These opinions are noted. The specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of attempting to
“facilitate the development”. The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to
the application for authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice
R1183 of 5 September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as
amended, have been followed in the EIA process. Refer further to relevant responses under
Items 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.23 above.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
The specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR present an appropriate, unbiased and
independent assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project
and nowhere have any attempts been made to “favour the proposal”.
79
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.31
1.31.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
For a project of this magnitude the potential both for harm and benefit is also considerable.
Therefore the standard of the EIA must be high and comprehensive. This report leaves many
questions unanswered, and does not appear to give priority to the needs of the community. It
appears to have an inherited bias. Whatever the merits of the proposal this report does not
adequately assess its potential impacts on the environment over the whole route, and appears to
give scant attention to alternatives.
Therefore it is my opinion that this draft report has sufficient defects that it would be unwise to allow
the proposal to proceed in its current form.
•
Preparation of Final EIR
As this document makes clear, it is apparent that considerable further studies and detailed and
comprehensive discussions with local communities, including our clients, must take place in order
to prepare a final EIAR that complies with the requirements of National Environmental
Management Act (“NEMA”). However, notwithstanding the limitations of the draft EIAR, it is clear
that the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway (“the Project”):
(a) will result in severe and irreversible environmental degradation, particularly to the plants and
ecosystems of the globally significant Pondoland Centre of Endemism (“PCE”);
(b) will have very severe negative impacts on the cultural heritage and landscape of the Wild
Coast and thereby both undermine the potential for ecotourism and other sustainable
development options that would allow local communities to improve their economic
circumstances while retaining their cultures;
(c) will not be ecologically sustainable; and
(d) cannot be regarded as justifiable economic and social development particularly given the
strong opposition from the alleged beneficiaries of the Project in the Pondoland area.
What is not apparent from the draft EIAR is the very strong and widespread opposition to the
Project among many of the communities of Pondoland. This must be investigated and addressed
in the final EIAR.
When
Detailed assessments, including consideration of the potential indirect/secondary and cumulative
negative and positive impacts, and evaluation of the ecological, social and economic sustainability
of the proposed project, have been undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process.
It is unclear on what basis the claim of “very strong and widespread opposition to the Project
among many of the communities of Pondoland” is made. Based on the public consultation
process undertaken as part of this EIA process, I&APs in the Eastern Cape, especially in the
section between Mthatha and the Mthamvuna River, have generally expressed support for the
proposed project. In any event, the adequacy of any EIA process cannot be measured against
the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the proposed project displayed by I&APs, rather, the
requirements of the relevant legislation and regulations would need to be considered.
1.32
1.32.1
•
Consideration of Alternatives
There is a need for a paradigm shift in the concept of long distance haulage. This activity is required by Refer to responses under Items 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 above.
producers who are geared to large scale production, or niche commodities. Transport then becomes a
significant part of the price of goods. With the petrol price unpredictable, and world supplies finite, it does not
make good economic sense to promote long-distance transport for goods which could be produced locally to
the benefit of disadvantaged communities. Furthermore any additional contribution to the production of
greenhouse gases and other pollutants is irresponsible. Alternative means of transport or alternative
production strategies may be more appropriate. The promotion and facilitation of long-distance haulage may
in itself be an unnecessary cause of negative impacts. This is a key factor for consideration in assessing need
and desirability, and an aspect which this report has not adequately considered.
1.32.2
Follow the Singapore model. Register lift clubs to avoid illegal taxis. Commuters take no less than four people Noted.
per car.
1.33
1.33.1
•
Compliance Monitoring
DEAT’s Review of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the EIA System in South Africa also highlights Noted. Section 16.7.3 of the Final EIR summarises the key mitigation measures applicable to the
weaknesses in compliance monitoring to ensure that approval conditions are adhered to and mitigation further planning and design, construction and operational phases of the proposed toll highway, as
measures are indeed implemented during construction and operation phases. The residual negative identified in the respective specialist reports (Volumes 2 to 4 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Parts C
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
80
E
E
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
1.33.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
impacts associated with the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway, particularly the “greenfields” section from
Lusikisiki to the Mthamvuna River, are significant; and the recommended mitigation measures
considerable, particularly with regard to vegetation and flora, fauna and aquatic ecosystems. It is
suggested that if a positive RoD is issued, DEAT and the Eastern Cape Department of Economic
Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA) must make sure that there is sufficient capacity to
monitor compliance.
and D of the report. It also identifies the relevant party(-ies) responsible for implementation of the
mitigation measures and additional resources required, where appropriate. As per standard EIA
practice, the identified mitigation measures will be translated into detailed management,
monitoring/auditing and reporting requirements in a Draft EMP.
As indicated in the ER, an independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must be appointed to Noted. Refer to response provided above.
ensure that the CEMP is carried out satisfactorily.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
81
When
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 2:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to the public consultation process, with responses from the
EIA project team and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
2.1
2.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Consultation process and procedures:
Inadequate public participation process
The Independent Review stipulated that Terms of Reference needed to be publicly
and independently reviewed and accepted; no indication that information was
provided in local languages, nor notification provided via media such as radio;
information provided at public meetings blatantly biased in favour of the project.
Meetings not held in Umlazi, Lamontvlle, Merebank, Austerville, Clairwood and
other affected areas. No realisation that the possible implications are of national
importance and not purely regional – should have been more widely advertised
nationally rather than locally. Totally flawed public participation process – clearly
indicated by the total lack of independence and credibility of independent
consultants - followed same procedure as the last EIA process – i.e. advertise their
meetings in obscure positions in the local press - these adverts were obviously
designed to be as vague as possible [number of questions raised and suggestions
provided for an acceptable public participation meeting format and process];
completely separate body like the judiciary should appoint a person who can be
trusted to act impartially to function as a facilitator at all future public meetings on
the proposed toll road; EIA process should be stopped. Public participation skills
were patently lacking at the presentation in Amanzimtoti – little or no thought had
been given to the specifics of the Greater Amanzimtoti area. Terms of Reference
goes against NEMA as they do not refer to “taking into account of interests, needs,
values” – one cannot take into account the interests, needs and values of rural
communities through documents left in libraries or by distributing information at a
public meeting. Current processes do not effectively enable the active participation
of the majority of rural community members in the Wild Coast region. Concerns
relating to the public meetings scheduled for Isipingo [details provided]. Outraged
and disappointed at the way the public participation process has been conducted;
public are not being informed in their different languages; process needs to be
abandoned and started from scratch. At Amanzimtoti the presentation was
unprofessional, the speaker patronizing, and the various specialists that were there
to answer questions couldn’t, wouldn’t or did not have the information to answer;
presenters were condescending and sounded untruthful. Engage the community in
meaningful participation or face the consequences of poor advertisement and
engagement as the project proceeds. Terms of Reference are deficient in that they
do not encompass the shortcomings of the previous project. Communities directly
affected unaware of the proposed meetings, proposed toll road and impact on their
finances [information and meeting requirements provided]. Notice of meetings very
inadequate, with the bare minimum advertising having taken place; whole
communities who will be directly affected have been entirely excluded; businesses
have not been consulted. No meeting held in Umdoni – no advertisement in Mid
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
When
The public participation process was informed by the relevant EIA Regulations and Guideline
Document issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. In this regard it is
considered that the extensive public participation that has been undertaken has gone well beyond
the requirements. This is illustrated by the fact that, amongst others, the announcement of the
availability of the DSR was placed in 17 national, regional and local newspapers, copies of the
Executive Summary were distributed to all I&APs on the database, copies of the Executive
Summary were made available in English, Afrikaans, isiXhosa and isiZulu upon request and were
available at all meetings, pre-recorded radio announcements in isiXhosa and isiZulu were used to
target people in the rural areas of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, 13 public meetings were
scheduled at key urban centres and towns along the proposed and existing routes and 124
meetings in the form of authority meetings, focus groups, special interest group meetings and
imbizos with rural communities were held. More than 5 000 people attended the meetings held.
The DSR was made available for an eight-week comment period, despite guidelines recommending
a six-week comment period. Although there was criticism of the presentation, particularly because
it was deemed to focus on the Eastern Cape, every attempt was made to provide a balanced
representation of the proposed project and its potential impacts along its entire route. For a detailed
account of the public consultation process undertaken, please refer to Appendix 10 of the FSR.
82
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
South Coast Mail advertising meetings. Lack of independence and inadequate
public participation process; process being managed in a very biased manner
[motivation provided]. Proof of an improved and more comprehensive public
awareness campaign is going to be asked for – if this was not done this adds to the
criticism of totally unacceptable methods being employed by the Consultants and
SANRAL. Could the Independent Review not have been quoted in the
presentation? Reject that 3 900 I&APs from the first EIA was used to inform people
– what about the other 300 000 or maybe a million people that this is going to
affect? EIA to canvas all KwaMakhutha residents and all informal settlements;
Obed Mlaba and Mike Sutcliffe to attend meetings, having previously publicly stated
that there will be no toll plaza situated in the Metropolitan Durban area. When are
you coming back again properly prepared?
2.1.2
2.1.2.1
Assessment that previous public participation process was adequate
Could not agree that the public consultation of the previous EIA could be deemed to
have been “sufficient” or “adequate” [motivation provided]. Previous consultants, in
the view held by the public of the Upper South Coast, at no stage exhibited the
degree of competence and the independence that would have ensured that they
were given a measure of respect and trust [motivation provided]; if the new
consultants are aware of the above shortcomings and are overlooking these on
purpose, this puts them in the same quarter as the lead consultants who were in
breach of the legal requirements and were rightfully disqualified because of conflict
of interest; similarly, if the new consultants are unaware of these problems, can
community be expected to trust a process that will obviously continue to reflect their
lack of competence in being able to do their homework and to carry out a truly
independent research? “The previous EIA process included an extensive public
consultation process” is patently untrue. How has the public consultation process
been deemed to be sufficient and adequate? – “adequately” cannot be measured
purely by number of meetings held. Vital that the process be re-designed in such a
manner as to enable effective participation of those who have not had the means to
be effectively heard in past and current processes. No presentation given to East
London taxi industry in previous process. Not consulted in the previous EIA
process. The Review states that there wasn’t sufficient public consultation so how
can it be said that it was sufficient and base the DSR on that? This should start
from scratch, including the decisions on the route through the greenfields section.
The people had not been consulted, particularly the black communities, the people
in Prospecton and taxi associations. Can guarantee that no one in Ezimbokodweni
or KwaMakhutha has even heard of this EIA before.
The assessment that the public participation process in the previous EIA was adequate was based
on a thorough review of the previous process which indicated compliance with the relevant EIA
Regulations and Guideline Document issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism. The Record of Decision issued by DEA for the previous EIA concurred with this view,
stating that, “The public participation process followed as part of the EIA process conformed to the
requirements of the regulations,” (clause 8.3).
S
E
FIRSTLY - The Expert Review Panel commissioned to investigate the appeals on the
previous EIA found that the Public Participation process was flawed owing to the fact that:
•
The information given to the public throughout the process was biased in
favour of the road.
SANRAL has indicated that it is important to note that there are a number of errors in fact and law in
the Independent Review (the Review). Further, SANRAL has been advised that the preparation of
the Review was unfair and procedurally flawed in that recommendations were made without
providing either SANRAL or the consultant to that process an opportunity to properly respond to the
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
83
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
•
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Information was “user unfriendly” thus not being comprehensible to those
without a western education.
•
Not all stakeholders were included in the process.
A further point is that first hand reports from many of the meetings held (which is
obviously not evident in the reports that the Expert Panel were able to study) is that they
were by no means free as the personalities involved merely told the participants what was
going to happen as a fait accompli and no discussion on the merits of the case were
allowed. All the above are in complete violation of World Bank criteria for development
projects which are commonly utilised as a bench-mark throughout the developing world.
One stipulation is that consultation must be ‘free, prior and informed”.
Yet it was concluded in the Final Scoping Report: “Therefore, taking into consideration the
number of written submissions made during the previous EIA, the 223 detailed appeals
against the RoD, the extensive public consultation undertaken, and in view of the fact that
the project is the same as for the first application, it was felt that all the key issues and
concerns relating to the proposed project were already on the table. In view of this it was
thus considered unnecessary to undertake a repeat of the initial public interaction, aimed
at identifying issues and concerns, normally associated with the commencement of a
Scoping Study.” (FSR)
How could all the “key issues of concern already be on the table” if stakeholders were
omitted from the beginning of that process, biased information was given from the
beginning of that process and people were unable to understand the information that was
given? Furthermore the process outlined in the EIA Regs is the minimum requirements
for a Public Participation Process. The Final Scoping Report states that the process in the
initial EIA adhered to these and so was considered adequate. In a project of this
magnitude and where Indigenous People are concerned the study has to go way beyond
the minimum requirements.
Thus the premise of an acceptable PP Process having been undertaken in the first EIA
underpinning the second EIA is flawed and therefore the whole process is fatally flawed.
2.1.3
Public consultation process
Will communities that will be affected be consulted? Not consulted previously. How
will individuals participate in the Scoping exercise? What is the purpose of the
public meeting in Bizana on 4 May? Actual households and councillors should be
communicated with, not only the chief. Thought team was there to tell them the
starting date for the road construction. Local communities gave their full support
long ago – did not see any need for consulting the people of Kokstad – they would
oppose the road and put a stop to it. There are many other stakeholders in Libode
besides taxi owners. Come to the community when things had been decided rather
than asking them to comment on things that had not yet been finalised. People in
areas like Bizana are not affected – people from local community need and want the
road – when are you going to consult with them? Were traditional authorities
consulted in arranging meetings in villages? The consultation process should be
tightened up so that it would be less problematic for DEAT to authorise. Does
everyone have the right to oppose the road? - or do those who are affected by the
road only have the right to comment. Would the consultation process be done again
at Khanyayo because the venue is not in the centre of the area and therefore many
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Response
allegations and statements made in the Review. On this basis alone, it is considered that the
Review does not provide a relevant or useful reference point for a critique of the new application
currently before DEA.
When
The correct and appropriate standards and procedures applicable to the application for
authorisation, as set out in the ECA and EIA Regulations (Government Notice R1183 of 5
September 1997, as amended) and other relevant legislation such as NEMA, as amended, have
been followed in the EIA process. In this regard, it should be noted that the Terms of Reference for
the Scoping Study were duly included in the Plan of Study for Scoping submitted to the relevant
environmental authorities and accepted by DEA on 20 June 2005. The relevant legislation and
applicable regulations prescribe the standards and procedure for the application for authorisation,
rather than the Review of the previous EIA.
Refer to response to Item 2.1.1 above.
84
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
2.1.4
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
people are not attending. Why are people being consulted in areas where the road
already exists? How were the chiefs and councillors consulted as they are
dependent on them as leaders. Very important to involve the communities in the
process [motivation provided]. Pleased that meeting did go ahead and was
successful. How many meetings were held? What kind of reactions have you had?
Critical part of the process is addressing taxi owners. Low turn-out – civilians
adequately represented/informed. Appears that a thorough study has been
undertaken.
Public consultation procedures
Complement the staff of NMA on the very well run meeting held in Pennington and
the well prepared visual presentation.
Project team is thanked for a good
presentation. Is anyone taking minutes? Is the meeting being recorded? Is a
quorum necessary for the community? How would the issue of paying toll fees be
explained to the communities? Could not hear the presentation clearly because of
the sound. How was Isipingo meeting publicised as there are more than 10 taxi
associations and he never heard of this meeting. Over 250 000 Zulu speakers in
Umlazi alone - still Lamontville and KwaMakhutha, so 400 Zulu flyers isn’t anything
to talk about. You said you put out 10 000 flyers – the poor attendance at the
Isipingo meeting clearly shows that the manner of distribution didn’t reach all the
people – so the meeting is not well organised and I suggest that the meeting is
postponed and you really do your job. Sure the taxi drivers who transport thousands
of people a day will distribute pamphlets if you pay them the money – they will bring
the masses. Document was not found in the library – there’s the Orient Hills and
Isipingo Beach Library. Need to bring the flyers for distribution so the people will
come. In Isipingo there are 25 taxi associations and 9 in Umzinto – there was a
need to organise all of those people in a meeting – people using the taxis will have a
problem because they will have to pay a lot of money. Meeting should be held at
14h00. The communication has been poor and there is a need to get all of the
affected people at the meeting; Need to ensure they have the opportunity to read
the document well in advance; need to think of some innovative ways to get
hundreds of documents out there so that people can access it. Work very closely
with the communities using loud speakers and whatever method is necessary. The
poor black population has not been reached – would appreciate it if the meeting
could be postponed for another time and work with us. Methodology of supplying
the flyers for the Isipingo meeting was flawed because it was received from the
school – what about those parents who don’t have children in schools in this area?
Differ with those who say the meeting should be postponed – should be free to see
the presentation and those who want to go must do so. Proposal that the meeting
be reconvened at a time that is suitable to the people to attend and that the
consultants do the work they are supposed to have done. Can we proceed with a
meeting that does not have the representation required? How many languages is
the presentation available in? What is the process of submitting comment on the
DSR? Please communicate what the outcomes of the meeting will be. Will I&APs
get a record of the meeting?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. Refer to response to Item 2.1.1 above.
85
When
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.1.5
Exclusion of previously disadvantaged communities
Meetings held in lower south coast likely to have excluded previously disadvantaged
and impoverished communities who reside largely in the tribal areas inland of the
coastal areas – request that there be full involvement of all communities likely to be
affected by the introduction of additional toll plazas on the existing N2 between
Hibberdene and eThekwini. Major concern relating to those who are not able to
attend meetings and therefore cannot voice their concerns. Not enough effort made
to consult residents of KwaMakhutha or Umlazi – why were no busses provided?
Why were no meetings held in the townships? The requirement of proper and
complete consultation has not been met – the majority of the N2 users, the lowsalaried workers who travel daily into Durban and back, have not been asked for
their input.
In both KZN and the Eastern Cape meetings were held with previously disadvantaged communities
in rural, peri-urban and urban areas along the proposed route of the project and in towns along the
existing N2 between Mthatha and Port Shepstone and the R61 between Lusikisiki and Port
Edward. For a list of all meetings held please refer to Appendix 10 of the FSR.
S
2.1.6
Exclusion of rural communities
Villages most affected (e.g. Ndwalane, Ntafufu and the 9 villages from Luqoqweni to
Mdumbane) have not been consulted on the full extent of alienation of access rights,
confiscation of property, accident levels and social disruption during construction –
they have naively been told that “progress” is a good thing and that it is
unstoppable. Need to write to DEAT and campaign about the road like the white
people who are against the road. It was said on television that the people from
Pondoland don’t want the toll road – the voice of the people from Pondoland must
also be on television and in the newspapers so that people can hear that the
communities need the road. Would presentations be held with villages along the
proposed route? Concerned that people from rural communities were not involved.
Was there a positive response from the people living in rural areas?
In the Eastern Cape meetings were held with villages along the route of the proposed project on the
existing N2 and R61 and in the green fields sections, as well as towns along the N2 between
Mthatha and Port Shepstone and the R61 between Lusikisiki and Port Edward. In KZN meetings
were held with six tribal authorities covering rural communities along the route between
Amanzimtoti and Port Shepstone. For a list of all meetings held please refer to Appendix 10 of the
FSR.
S
2.1.7
Lack of awareness or understanding of the proposed project
Disturbing that so little is known about the plans to toll the N2; many questions
remain unanswered by SANRAL. People living in the rural areas and informal
settlements around Amanzimtoti are totally oblivious regarding the planned N2 toll
road. Poor attendance at Isipingo meeting is a clear reflection of the lack of public
awareness due to a total lack of proper information dissemination. Very high
proportion of respondents (41%) do not know of the proposed location of the route
of the toll road relative to their homes; 51% have had the opportunity to attend a
workshop on the proposed N2 toll road; still an extremely limited understanding of
the N2 toll road amongst rural communities on the EC Wild Coast. Rural poor
people of Pondoland have not been encouraged to indicate their preferred route –
they have been told that there is only one viable route, this being the proposed N2
toll road; it is necessary for a relief model of the Pondoland area to be prepared,
and the topographical features depicted – this model should show the alignment of
the various possible routes, so that the local people can give a more informed
opinion. Certain people were claiming there were people who did not know about
the toll road. Local people at Kwampisi did not have information about the road.
Even the most enlightened don’t seem to know about the road – were people really
informed?
The announcement of the project and the announcement of the availability of the DSR and public
meetings were advertised widely in newspapers and on local radio stations targeting rural areas.
The project also received extensive media coverage both in newspapers and on the radio
throughout the project area with many stories appearing on the front page of newspapers. An
extensive public consultation process was undertaken during the comment period on the DSR. A
total of 13 public meetings were held at key urban centres and towns along the route and there
were 124 additional meetings in the form of authority meetings, focus groups, special interest group
meetings and imbizos with rural communities. Many of these additional meetings were held to
facilitate comment on the DSR from previously disadvantaged and rural communities who don’t
have access to the reports or electronic communications technology.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
86
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.1.8
DSR Presentation focussed on the Eastern Cape
Little preparation had been made to address problems of the Upper South Coast –
meeting was merely an exercise in justification of the road in the Eastern Cape.
Amanzimtoti meeting was about the environmental impact in the Transkei, including
a 20 minute video about Transkei – nothing was said about, and no video was
shown about the environmental impact in and around Amanzimtoti. Minimal
presentations held in the Upper South Coast area and have not been meetings to
scope issues as is required by the legislation, but merely a presentation of a report
as a fait accompli. Concerned about the section of 15 to 20 km of the road in the
Upper South Coast. Much of presentation was on the alternatives through the
Transkei – of no real interest or concern to people living on the Upper South Coast –
only part affecting Upper South Coast is impacts of tolls, which should not be linked
to justifying a road through the Transkei. Would there be a presentation focussing
on the areas between Mthatha and East London – people would be deprived if not.
Presentation was too short for it to be easily understood. Presentation was
informative and helped people understand the project. Presentation might create
the wrong impression - dual carriageway shown whereas the new section of road
would be a single carriageway initially. Presentation in vernacular made it easier to
understand. Presentation too technical and documentation provided too lengthy –
future presentations should be more “bite-sized” and relevant to the attending
community.
A standard audio-visual presentation on the DSR was given at all 137 meetings during the
comment period (refer to Appendix 10 of the FSR for a copy of the script to the audio-visual
presentation). The presentation was available in English, isiXhosa and isiZulu depending on the
language preference of the participants. Although it was realised that the interests of I&APs on
different sections of the route would differ, a decision was taken to give everybody the same
presentation in order to avoid allegations of selective information dissemination and ensure that
everybody received the same message about the project. The question and answer sessions
following the presentation then allowed I&APs to focus on the issues that concerned them.
S
2.1.9
Illiteracy and access to computers
Largest number of people is semi or fully illiterate, particularly in English and
computer use and access – this is a fatal flaw. Most of the local people are unable
to read and write and therefore cannot comment in writing – they should be able to
comment in public meetings. How can people access the information if they don’t
have access to the internet? Use of high-tech means such as cell phones,
telephones and faxes is often regarded with well-founded suspicion by the affected
people. Unaware that Executive Summary was available in Xhosa.
The public participation strategy was designed specifically to address the fact that a large
proportion of the target audience would be illiterate, speak Xhosa or Zulu as their mother tongue,
and would not have access to libraries, computers or electronic communications technology. A
total of 137 meetings were therefore held, most of them in rural and previously disadvantaged
areas. An audio-visual presentation was made in the language of preference to ensure that people
understood the project and its potential impacts. Question and answer sessions then allowed
people to raise their concerns and ask questions in the language of their choice, and these were
recorded in minutes of the meetings for inclusion in the FSR.
S
2.1.10
Deliberate exclusion of stakeholders from the consultation process
It is alleged that certain groups of I&APs are deliberately excluded from the public
participation process.
Every attempt was made to include all stakeholders in the process and no individual, organisation
or group of people was deliberately excluded from the public consultation process.
S
2.1.11
Inappropriate timing of meetings
Meetings which coincide with spring low tide virtually guarantee that no fishermen
will be attending meetings in Port St Johns, Lusikisiki, Flagstaff, Kokstad and Bizana
due to loss of income during the full moon week. Thank you for the offer of
arranging a special meeting with the affected fishermen. Sorry that there are not a
lot of people at the KwaMakhutha meeting but it is the Jacob Zuma hearing and
most people are watching that.
The timing of meetings was discussed with local municipalities, traditional leaders and
knowledgeable people from the areas in question before the schedule was finalised. Attempts were
made to avoid obvious conflicts such as pension payout days in rural areas, but it was simply not
possible to cover every eventuality in a schedule of 137 meetings over such a time period.
Additional meetings were scheduled when requested if they were deemed reasonable and could be
accommodated in the schedule.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
87
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.1.12
Notification of meetings
Is it suggested that because a local office has not registered, the head office does
not get notified? Not notified of public meetings – are there other interested people
who are not getting information?
All I&APs on the registered I&AP database were informed of the 13 public meetings and these were
also advertised in the national, regional and local newspapers and on local radio stations targeting
the rural areas. An additional 124 meetings were held with all local and district municipalities along
the route, regional authorities in the Eastern Cape, traditional authorities in KwaZulu-Natal, relevant
provincial and national government departments, sectoral groups such as minibus taxi and bus
operators and business chambers, local pressure groups and focus groups in smaller towns and
townships along the route. These meetings were arranged through contact with representatives of
the organizations or institutions in question, invitation letters to people on the registered I&AP
database from those sectors or towns being targeted, and liaison with councillors and traditional
leaders. Some of the meetings in towns along the route were also publicized in the local media. In
the Eastern Cape imbizos were held in the rural areas along the existing R61 and N2 routes and in
the green fields sections. These meetings were arranged in conjunction with the traditional leaders
and ward councillors from those areas.
S
2.1.13
Location of meetings
Gravely concerned that no DSR public meetings are to be held in
Johannesburg/Gauteng and perhaps Cape Town/Western Cape [motivation
provided] – on what grounds was it deemed not necessary to hold a public meeting
in Johannesburg or Cape Town? Incomprehensible that EWT was not invited to a
meeting in KZN with environmental organisations. Request list of imbizos and
public meetings so that domestics can be informed – has the Umbumbulu area been
included? Request meeting in Tsolo, as it’s difficult for people to get to Qumbu.
Lot of valid stakeholders cannot afford to come to the Bizana public meeting and a
lot of business owners in Bizana do not reside there. Concern that the anti-toll
alliance will bus people into Mbizana’s public meeting so that they can be seen to be
against the road. How will people from the coast be informed as public meetings will
take place in urban areas. Was a meeting held in Harding? How many meetings
were held in Bizana? Surely people in rural areas can’t attend these meetings?
How many meetings were held in the Upper South Coast and why was the
Southgate Industrial Park not consulted? Why are public meetings not held in
Kokstad and Port Edward? Hold meetings deep in tribal areas to hear their views.
The extensive schedule of meetings provided ample opportunity for those people in the project area
to attend meetings if they wished to do so. Only one request was received for a meeting in Gauteng
and none from the Western Cape. I&APs on the registered I&AP database from the Western Cape
and Gauteng received a copy of the Executive Summary to the DSR and were able to view the full
report on the website. Most of these people were appellants or submitted written comments in the
previous EIA process and were able to send written comments on the DSR to make their views
known. For a list of all meetings held please refer to Appendix 10 of the FSR.
S
The same presentation was given at all meetings to avoid allegations of selective information
dissemination and ensure that everybody received the same message about the project (refer to
Appendix 10 of the FSR for a copy of the script to the audio-visual presentation). Every attempt was
made to answer questions as fully as possible and without any bias either towards or against the
project and its proponent.
S
2.2
2.2.1
•
Independence of facilitators:
Facilitators not objective
Doubt the objectivity of the presenters since they did not only take note of the
comments but defended them [motivation provided]. The “independent” consultants
led the public meetings in a biased manner. Representatives of the project
promoters appear to have taken insufficient notice of the wide-ranging objections of
individuals and community representatives. Presentation shown is still biased in
favour of persuading members of the public to support SANRAL’s preferred route,
rather than an unbiased “needs based” programme which allows for debate of the
effects of the pro’s and cons of the road on the various communities. Very rosy
picture given of the benefits of the toll road , with very little mention made of any
possible negative effects – presentation also gives sweeping “propaganda” style
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
88
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
Response
statements. The computer-driven presentation was a real spin. Consultants
followed the unacceptable practice of running the meetings to their set agenda – the
public should be put first and be asked what they want to talk about and together an
agenda is decided upon. Do not appreciate the patronising attitude in provision of
answers. Consultants have been contracted to sell the idea – the N2 won’t be
attended to. Consultant does not sound independent. Presentation is something a
spin doctor would produce. Presentation is unbalanced [motivation provided].
Consultants seemed to have taken a position that was aligned to SANRAL. Strong
criticism had simply been passed off. Question objectivity of the process – the
consultants accepted a lot of facts that were not in the best interests of the public.
Concerned that it was stated in the presentation that the previous EIA was not set
aside for environmental reasons – that is misleading since in fact there were serious
environmental considerations. Get the impression that the consultants are trying to
sell the road instead of being sensitive to how it’s going to affect the people.
Credibility of consultants to accept information issued by SANRAL to be tested
[motivation provided]. Presentation is pro the toll road and SANRAL pays the
consultants – how much money has been spent and who is funding all this work?
Presentation was full of rhetoric devoid of facts and lacked detail - whole
presentation lacked transparency [motivation provided].
Test for the credibility of consultants
Is there an independent body or group that gives a merit rating of the credibility,
integrity and independence of consultants? If you become convinced, as we are,
that SANRAL can’t be trusted to act in a transparent and honest manner, will you
continue to represent them? It was stated that the two companies doing the EIA
have nothing to gain from the process - are the consultants doing the EIA for
nothing? Would the consultants recommend that the Isipingo plaza be moved down
to Park Rynie?
•
Other organisations/entities to consult:
Authorities
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Department of Agriculture and
Department of Land Affairs should be consulted. Traffic engineers from eThekwini
should be given the opportunity to comment on proposals. Taxi Associations
should be contacted.
Were Black communities/taxi associations in the
Amandawe/Dududu/Amahlonwa areas west of Scottburgh shown a presentation on
the proposed toll road? Why is the Queen of Quakeni opposed to the proposed
project? It is very important to meet with the traditional authorities and
municipalities. Would like to have an opportunity to arrange a meeting with taxi
owners [motivation provided]. Communities in Mbizana LM should attend the
meetings. Important that the voice of the affected communities is heard and that
something happens soon. Were the kings consulted? Was the Royal House of
Quakeni consulted? Was the eThekwini Metro Council consulted about the
principle of erecting a toll plaza within the eThekwini Metro and obtain their views?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
SANRAL rejects any allegation that it has acted in any unlawful manner. In terms of Regulation
3(1)(a) of the ECA EIA Regulations, as amended, an independent consultant does not “represent”
an applicant, but “must on behalf of the applicant comply with the regulations”.
S
Every attempt has been made to consult as widely as reasonably possible and to target all relevant
key stakeholders. The relevant officials from government departments and municipalities are on the
registered I&AP database. All regional authorities in the Eastern Cape (Kings and Queen in case of
Nyandeni) and tribal authorities in KZN along the route were offered presentations on the DSR.
Meetings were held with relevant black communities and taxi associations all along the proposed
route.
S
89
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
2.4
2.4.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Failure to take into consideration concerns of stakeholders:
Failure to take into consideration concerns of stakeholders
Concerns raised in the comment period of the initial BID are once again being
ignored. What has been done to answer and address any of the concerns. The
numerous issues raised during the previous EIA process are still valid – this whole
EIA process needs to be re-looked at. “Comments Noted” is specifically referred to
in the Independent Review as a shortcoming of the previous participation process,
as nothing further ever happened with these noted concerns – appears that nothing
has changed in the deficiencies this time round. Those living on the Upper South
Coast know without a doubt that tolling is going to have an adverse effect on “most
people’s human health and well being” – why will an environmental consultant not
want to address our environmental concerns as required by NEMA? Don’t have
much confidence in comments being taken seriously. At Amanzimtoti meeting it
seemed that the presenters were so keen to get to the presentation that they
weren’t concerned about the public comments.
Response
When
The issues and concerns identified and raised during the Scoping Study informed the identification
of potential environmental impacts and key shortcomings and/or gaps that need to be addressed in
the EIA process. These, in turn, have formed the basis for Terms of Reference for specialist
studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Chapter 9 of
the DSR/FSR). New specialist reports were compiled which incorporated, as appropriate, an
update of information contained in the previous independent specialist reports and the results of
new investigations and assessments.
S
The EIA team and SANRAL have been advised that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall
outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority. To
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, and must take place in accordance therewith. The Act
itself specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a Toll road. To the
extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments and representations made during the public
participation process undertaken in terms of the Act, aggrieved parties are entitled to review the
decision. It was advised that issues and concerns relating to tolling and associated socio-economic
impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but be merely captured in the relevant documentation
and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for consideration during the Declaration of Toll road
process.
However, although information related to the potential social and economic impacts of tolling would
not be used by DEA in its decision-making on the proposed project, the EIA project team deemed it
prudent to include consideration of these aspects in the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process (refer to Section 9.3 of the DSR/FSR and Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
The Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process included investigation and assessment of road
user costs and benefits (refer to the economic specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 13 and Part
D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
2.4.2
Responses to comments on the DSR
In response to these submissions, please do not quote sections of the report as it is
these very sections that are being disputed as being in compliance with the
procedural and substantive aspects of the process. Expect answers to the written
letter entitled DCCI concerns.
Noted.
S
2.4.3
Would people’s concerns be addressed
Would issues be ignored and the project just bulldozed ahead. Community doesn’t
trust verbal assurances – they need written assurances of things that are promised,
e.g. who will be responsible for compensation. What could the community do if
what they were being told about compensation and overpasses, etc. didn’t happen.
Is there a chance for the community to propose an alternative route or any other
Noted. The FSR has been compiled with due consideration of comments received on the DSR and
has been submitted to the relevant environmental authorities for consideration and acceptance, as
appropriate.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
90
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
related issues? What difference would be made by people’s comments as there
would be a political decision. Appears to be a fait accompli – process doesn’t
appear to entitle parties to make a case for reconsideration. Concerned about
independence of process as the consortium has considerable lobbying power and
the voices of the people on the South Coast won’t be heard.
2.5
2.5.1
•
2.6
•
Comment Period:
Comment period for the DSR inadequate
Closing date of 9/6/2006 is totally inadequate – this should be at least 4 months
[motivation provided]; DSR only became available to the public on 18/4/2006 –
library not open on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays – means that only one
copy was available for the entire Transkei coastal area for 12 days during office
hours – hardly adequate. Why is meeting a month into the comment period? –
limited to another four weeks for comments to be raised. Was an extension on the
deadline anticipated? – what contingency plans were in place if responses were not
forthcoming? Not many people could engage effectively with such a big document
in eight weeks.
Distribution of documents for review:
DSR only arrived at Kingsburgh Library on 19/4/2006 and not 13/4/2006 as stated.
Thus the statement that the DSR was made available for eight weeks is incorrect – it
is to be expected that the submission date will be extended accordingly.
SDCEA is a community organisation and cannot pay the R350 for the document – it
is our right to receive the document [motivation provided]; if you are unable to
provide a complete hard copy of the entire document, please say so and we will
need to assess and decide what is our best way forward to challenge the process;
failure to provide this document is a serious breach of the EIA Regulations.
Mentioned in Sunday Times that DSR will be lodged at Mbizana Library - there is no
library in Mbizana. Are there enough copies at libraries and information centres?
Did KZN provincial departments receive the full DSR? Very difficult to get hold of
the information - not possible to download such large documents. Are the reports
from the previous EIA available? Requests a copy of the DSR.
2.7
2.7.1
•
Use of Media:
Access to newspapers
The fact that the new application was advertised in 17 newspapers is irrelevant –
how many of the poorer communities can afford newspapers? Why is radio not
used as a medium?; most people in the rural Eastern Cape do not read newspapers
– a serious shortcoming.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Although the guidelines recommend a comment period of 6 weeks this was extended to 8 weeks
due to the Easter, Freedom Day and Workers’ Day public holidays and the need to accommodate
more than 130 meetings.
S
It is regrettable that some of the DSRs were not in the designated libraries on the stipulated date
due to factors beyond our control. However, the report was still available for more than 7 working
weeks, excluding public holidays, at the library where the latest date of arrival was reported. This
still provided adequate time to review the report.
S
The DSR was available in local libraries and on the internet. It is not possible to provide a free copy
of the report to all community and other organisations within the project area on a longitudinal
project of such scale. All local and district municipalities, regional authorities and relevant provincial
and national government departments and agencies were provided with copies of the report.
S
The availability of the DSR and details of the public meetings were advertised in 17 national,
regional and local newspapers and through pre-recorded radio announcements in isiXhosa and
isiZulu on local radio stations covering the rural areas of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal
(refer to Appendix 10 of the FSR for further details). Over and above this a large number of
meetings were held in rural and previously disadvantaged areas to facilitate comment on the DSR
from communities who don’t have access to the reports or electronic communications technology.
91
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
2.7.2
2.8
2.9
Advertisements
Web page referring to the DSR was not provided in the newspaper advert; 13th
April is a Thursday, not a Tuesday. Since when can a small advert in any
newspaper ensure public participation from the bulk of affected parties who never
read a newspaper? About 12 people, from the whole of Isipingo, Lamontville,
Umlazi, Merewent and surrounds, pitched up at the Isipingo meeting following the
advertisement campaign. Process limited as it had not been well advertised in the
media at its inception. Wild Coast Herald published the advert on the front page of
the copy dated 13 April 2006.
•
•
Consultation during specialist studies:
Unclear how people would be informed of the dates of specialist studies; it would be
expected that they would simply be desk top studies only. How would the public be
involved in the specialist studies? – specialist reports should cover each specific
section with involvement of the public in each area. When will the traffic impact
study be undertaken so that the public can say how they feel about the congestion
on Kingsway.
Database:
Cannot find name on the database, although correspondence was received.
Response
When
The correct information for the advertisements was given to all newspapers but one group of
newspapers incorrectly entered the information, omitting the website addresses and stating
Tuesday 13 April instead of Thursday 13 April. When the inaccuracy was picked up the newspaper
group in question was informed of the mistake and re-ran the advertisements on a subsequent
date. All advertisements were at least 15 cm x 15 cm and were placed in the main body of the
newspapers, not the classifieds section. The advert in Indabezethu, which targets Zulu speakers in
the areas mentioned, appeared on the front page.
S
In parallel with the specialist studies, various meetings with key interest groups and/or communities
will be held to further discuss and understand the potential impacts relating to the proposed project.
These meetings will be determined by the relevant specialists in consultation with the EIA
consultant and will be arranged through direct contact with the representatives of the community,
interest group or organisation concerned. These meetings will not be advertised as the idea is to
have focus group meetings where issues and impacts can be unpacked, not public meetings that
often become unruly and lack the required focus.
S
Anybody receiving correspondence is on the database as all correspondence sent to I&APs is
generated through the database management system using the registered I&AP database. The
name of the person concerned was on the database included in the DSR.
S
It should be noted that the purpose of an EIA is not to solicit approval or otherwise of a proposed
project from I&APs, but to determine the issues and concerns relating to the project and assess the
potential impact of the proposed project and feasible alternatives thereto on the receiving
environment.
S
2.10
2.10.1
•
2.10.1.1
Unsolicited Proposals (Refer Item 2.1 Rationale for Tolling at a National Level). The
proposed N2 Wild Coast Highway was originally an Unsolicited Proposal made by a
Consortium of roads engineers, and NOT by the local people, whose traditional lifestyles
would be severely disrupted by the proposed Highway.
Section 3.1.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR discusses the Unsolicited Proposal Process in detail.
Refer also to the response to Item 2.10.1 above.
E
2.10.1.2
This is another attempt by an incompetent government, to try and provide employment,
services and new infrastructures for an area that has been ignored for decades. But the
individuals in authority do not have the ability to understand the implications of the whole
project. This is proved by the fact that they wish to steamroll a new freeway through
sensitive areas that will cost huge amounts of taxpayer’s money, and will most definitely
not provide large employment opportunities for the long term future. This is being
attempted, without proper negotiations with the very folk who they say they are trying to
These opinions are noted. The relevant specialist reports and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide a
detailed assessment of the potential impacts on biodiversity and potential job creation opportunities
during the construction and operational phases. Outcomes of meetings regarding the proposed
Xolobeni mining fall outside the scope of this EIA process.
E
Mandate for Project:
Mandate from communities of Pondoland
Concerned that mandate was not received from the rural communities of the Wild
Coast to make decisions on its behalf, particularly in terms of the most appropriate
development options for their respective areas of residence [motivation provided].
Are the results of the OR Tambo DM’s 2003 conference included in the report as
they reflect to a great degree the feelings of the people in this area.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
92
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
2.10.1.3
That so many public concerns from 2003 have still not been adequately addressed calls
into question the integrity and motivations of the public participation process. SWC is of
the opinion that this is primarily because the proposal originated on questionable
foundations which were not based on egalitarian and broad based consultation, so that all
subsequent public consultation has been limited to commentary on an already
promulgated proposal. If the foundations are faulty, no amount of papering over cracks
will fix the problem! The preferable alternative would have been the more egalitarian
scenario where proposals for suitable transport infrastructures would have originated out
of widespread consultation across all levels, within the parameters of a holistic regional
development plan.
Refer to the response to Item 2.10.1 above. Refer also to relevant responses to Item 1.8.1 in Table
1 in this regard.
E
2.10.1.4
We would appreciate it if you would kindly note for the record that we are concerned that
your organisation has not been provided with a mandate from the rural communities of the
Wild Coast to make decisions on its behalf, particularly in terms of the most appropriate
development options for their respective areas of residence. We feel that it is
important that the said communities are properly consulted first, and a formal mandate
obtained from them, to ensure that your proposed development plans are in keeping with
their own vision of appropriate land use opportunities and their own basic economic and
socio-economic needs. Furthermore, it is clear that this particular initiative is not the only
proposed or suitable project for sustainable development in these areas, so we believe
that it would be important for the communities to first be afforded the opportunity of
properly understanding the alternative opportunities available to them, before any
conclusions are drawn by your organisation as to what would be most beneficial
development option. In any event, it would be naive to assume that 'eco-tourism' is the
only suitable development option available, or that it should be approached from the angle
proposed by your particular initiative, especially one considers the benefits associated
with other economic incentives such as improved agriculture, for example. Finally, it
should be remembered that neither government, nor the private sector has any inherent
or superior right to make unilateral decisions about land use development options
on communal land - the state simply being the custodians of such land at this time, and
the communities being the putative owners thereof, with increasingly improved ownership
rights.
Refer to the response to Item 2.10.1 above.
E
2.11
2.11.1
•
All I&APs on the registered I&AP database have been kept informed of further developments on
the EIA. This included notification of the availability of the Final Scoping Report; notification of the
availability of the Draft EIR, the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and details of public open
days or meetings on the Draft EIR. Notification of the submission of the Final EIR and the Record
of Decision on the application for environmental authorisation will also be undertaken, as
appropriate.
S
help!!!! This fact was proved by the Xolobeni meeting that was broadcast on TV and in the
newspapers, where the Minister of Minerals was slated by the locals and where she
answered that she was unaware that the locals had not been involved in the process.
What rubbish!!!!!! It’s her JOB to make sure the process was done correctly.
Further Consultation:
Further consultation in the EIA
Need to come back and consult with the people – necessary for people to play a
wider more meaningful role and not just in terms of transportation. Will be required
to make a presentation to the Executive Council, which comprises 16 regions and
covers the entire KZN province. How can Municipality receive updates and relevant
documentation? Would like to be kept informed. Will another meeting be held for
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
93
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
those who did not attend? How will people be informed about DEAT’s decision? Is
ARC part of the N2 toll road process? How can communities be sure that it is
SANRAL’s process? Would there be another round of public consultation and could
a list of meetings be sent? Progress information should be made available
quarterly and information centres should be within reach of the affected people.
When
2.11.2
Further consultation throughout the project
How can Council best see that beneficiaries and affected communities are
consulted? Suggest a Steering Committee be formed to work on the
implementation of the road so that stakeholders are included. SANRAL should
notify communities about progress on the project – in particular about local labour
employment when construction begins. Meetings should be held to announce the
construction. SANRAL should visit communities during construction to determine
the number of SMMEs. Where can concerns be raised after the meeting? Needed
to be kept informed of all processes regarding the proposed project. Taxi industry
needed to have representatives to make representations. Concerned that promises
being made would not be kept during implementation. Broader consultation should
be undertaken before agreeing on where to put toll plazas. How will information be
obtained about the road? Does the consultation period end when the road starts or
when construction ends? Consultants coming in future should understand what
people in Khanyayo want. Information required in writing about all the development
processes taking place. Design of road through KSD and Mthatha must be
approved by the KSD LM. Would affected people be given timeous warning about
when, where and how long each project step would take.
Should the project go ahead, it is anticipated that the successful tenderer would implement a
communications and consultation strategy to keep all I&APs informed of developments on the
project.
S
2.11.3
Contact with Minister
The relevant Minister should be contacted of concerns because communities
cannot depend on what gets said or what the outcome will be of the survey.
DEA will consider all concerns raised by I&APs during its review of reports submitted during the EIA
and in reaching its RoD on the environmental application. The Minister of Environmental Affairs will
consider all appeals raised in relation to the RoD.
S
Noted.
S
DEA has been requested to clarify the status of this document.
S
This opinion is noted. See the response to Item 2.13.1.2 below.
E
2.12
2.12.1
2.12.2
2.13
2.13.1
2.13.1.1
•
Correspondence with Authorities:
SANRAL
Wrote to Minister of Transport, pointing out the economic position of previously
disadvantaged people, who referred me to Mr Wilson’s department – that was two
years ago and still awaiting a reply.
DEAT
Was the letter to DEAT regarding the use of information from the previous EIA and
the Scoping Study process a public document and could they receive a copy.
•
Consultation Process and Procedures
Inappropriate consultation format for rural communities
SWC is of the opinion that the format of the information displays and presentations at the
Public Open Days is not suitable as means of conveying adequate and understandable
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
94
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
information to the many illiterate and poorly educated rural communities residing in
Eastern Cape who will be affected by the road. It is SWC observation that the manner and
presentation of information at the Public Open Days is neither culturally nor educationally
suitable as a format that would enable disempowered, largely illiterate, orally based
communities to gain an adequate understanding of the full implications of the road, in
accordance with the requirements of NEMA Section 4(2)(f) that requires the state to
ensure participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons in environmental
governance, and Section 2(4)(h) of NEMA that prescribes the following additional
measures to ensure the protection of the environment : ‘community well-being and
empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of
environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other
appropriate means’. Consequently, SWC calls for a relook at the presentation format in
rural communal areas which would allow for a ‘community education’ process that would
empower rural communities with the means to become informed decision makers with
regard to the proposal.
2.13.1.2
I attended an Open House event with a member of the community of Xolobeni. From a
professional viewpoint my observations were:
• An Open House is a culturally insensitive public forum. This works well for ‘western’
communities along the South Coast section but it is totally alien to the amaPondo
culture. As a communal culture the concept of one-on-one discussions does not exist
and hence it is experienced as very intimidating. When faced with an issue it is
customary for the whole community to meet and discuss/debate the issue in an open
and transparent manner until such time as consensus is reached. An Open House is
designed to achieve exactly the opposite – individual discussions to identify an
individual’s issues. Thus the imperative for a PP process to be “facilitated in such a
manner that all potential interested and affected parties are provided with a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the application” (EIA Regs) has not been met. And as far
as the World Bank criteria are concerned this methodology does not comply with
consultation in a “culturally appropriate” manner.
• The posters on display were too technical for a lay person to understand and too
verbally based for an illiterate person. The Consultants may feel that they are
transmitting understandable messages but it is commonly accepted in communications
theory that it is not the transmission that is important but the receiving. The idea
behind an Open House is to inform the public. If the message is in such a form that it
cannot be received the process is entirely negated. Local people left the Open House
no better informed than they were before.
• In order to get the necessary information people have to ask questions. To do this they
have to know the right questions to ask. If they don’t, they very seldom emerge with a
full knowledge of the pros and cons of a development on which they can form opinions
and make comment. It is therefore assumed that they have no contribution to make
and that they fully support the development. This is not necessarily the case and
cannot be called “free, prior and informed consultation” as is required by the World
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
As it was not possible to have a Public Open Day at every single community along the route, the
Public Open Days were held at central locations along the route and transport was provided from
outlying areas to the nearest Public Open Day venue. Transport arrangements were made well in
advance through the traditional authorities and local taxis or busses were used to transport people
to the venues. The arrival of people from different areas was staggered so that the venue was not
overcrowded through too many people arriving at the same time.
E
The information that was displayed at the Public Open Days was in the form of posters in both
English and the local language, either isiZulu or isiXhosa, depending on the location of the meeting.
These posters highlighted both the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project
and the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures, as appropriate. These posters
contained visual images where possible to illustrate the information that was being conveyed. Large
photographs were also displayed depicting an example of a toll plaza and a typical cross section of
the proposed road in the “greenfields” sections. Maps showing sections of the proposed route were
also exhibited.
At the Public Open Days on the “greenfields” sections of the route 1:10 000 aerial photographs
were also displayed which depicted the proposed route of the road and the alternatives that were
investigated, the proposed toll plaza positions, the proposed intersections with the local road
network, etc. These aerial photographs were extremely useful as they clearly showed the houses,
schools, existing roads and local landmarks which enabled local people to locate the proposed
project in relation to their own homes.
However, it was also understood that the information that was being displayed was highly technical
in nature and that many people who attended the Public Open Days would not be able to
understand and/or read the information without assistance. People from previously disadvantaged
backgrounds were therefore given the opportunity to be guided around the display in groups by a
95
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Bank.
• Having only a few venues to which local people have to travel shows a complete lack
of understanding for the way of life. People in rural communities do not have spare
cash to pay for local transport. In fact in these communities local transport hardly
exists. Only a small percentage of people are able to attend
South Africa’s Public Participation Guidelines state that people must “be afforded an
opportunity to influence those decisions”. The Pondo people have not been afforded this
opportunity owing to the fact that the process did not provide them with balanced and
complete information, was not culturally appropriate and was not accessible to the
majority of the affected people. They are hence not ‘empowered’ to contribute as NEMA
stipulates and have not been afforded the opportunity to influence the decision.
Even if all the arguments in the previous section that the level at which the whole Public
Participation Process should be geared is that of ‘collaborate’ are negated and it is agreed
that the level of ‘inform’ is sufficient, even this process has not satisfied this most basic of
levels. At the ‘inform’ level the goal is to “provide the public with balanced and objective
information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.”
(IAP2) The Pondo people have not been provided with balanced and objective information
and do not understand the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.
facilitator who explained each poster and fielded questions in the mother tongue of the participants.
Informal meetings with a question and answer session were also arranged with groups of people.
As large groups of people from the same area would arrive together using the public transport
provided, it was not difficult to arrange sufficient numbers of people to participate in these ad hoc
meetings or to be guided around the display by a facilitator. A common feature of these interactions
was the lively debate and exchanges that took place.
When
All participants were encouraged to write down their comments about the proposed development
after they had been around the display and finished engaging with the facilitators and members of
the EIA team. Assistance was provided by the facilitators for those who could not write or did not
want to write.
While it should be noted that this EIA is being conducted in terms of the ECA, Guideline 4: Public
Participation in support of the EIA Regulations issued in Government Gazette No. 28854 of 19 May
2006 states the following in relation to Public Meetings and Public Open Days:
Public meetings suffer from two distinct shortcomings. Firstly, they are not very effective in
conveying technical information about a project. This drawback is especially pronounced in
the case of previously disadvantaged communities. Secondly, they have the potential to
engender conflict among participants and to degenerate into "venting sessions" about longstanding disputes unrelated to the project. In order to circumvent these difficulties, open days
may be held to provide l&APs with information about a proposed activity and to provide them
with the opportunity to submit comments.
It is considered that the Public Open Days, with the additional measures that were undertaken as
outlined above, were the most appropriate way of engaging with the large number of I&APs over an
extensive study area, from different cultural and educational backgrounds, in order to provide them
with a reasonable opportunity to learn about and comment on the Draft EIR.
2.13.1.4
Ineffective and inadequate modes of communication
According to our clients, the consultations conducted by the environmental consultants
were very confusing and mainly consisted of displaying posters and diagrams for
comment. This is problematic as some of the community members in this area are visually
impaired and therefore could not see the diagrams and in any event they did not disclose
many important details. The draft EIAR fails to identify and discuss such limitations of the
consultation process.
Language constraints
Many members of the Amadiba Community are elderly people most of which do not read,
speak or understand English. The consultants in conducting their meetings failed to take
cognisance of this issue and conducted their presentations in English. The consultants
also wrote letters to community members in English which resulted in serious confusion
amongst community members and therefore limited their participation in the public
consultation process. The use of English also prevented effective participation by the
majority of the people in these communities.
Venues for consultations
The venues for public participation were very distant from other areas in this community
and elderly people who own livestock or were ploughing fields could not travel such long
distances and therefore could not make it to the consultations. Some venues were not
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above. The letters were accompanied by a Basic Information
Brochure (refer to Appendix G) in English and isiXhosa that explained the consultation process and
gave details of the Public Open Days that would be held.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
96
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
accessible to general members of the public and many people could not gain access to
such consultation venues. The above excluded a considerable number if not the majority
of the community from fully participating in the process.
2.13.1.5
I am not sure as to how it will affect my residence as it is difficult to understand what is
contained in this whole matter and brochures. The format of presentation is not clear
since the matter is very sensitive. It does not give an answer as to whether people can
continue in developing their sites. I feel we need consultative meetings and a map of how
it will affect our area. This format of presentation is disorganised and leaves people in
confusion.
2.13.2
2.13.2.1
Inappropriate consultation format for sharing information
It is strongly suggested that a formal public day be held where questions and answers can
be recorded, as the open day concept for a project of this nature is deficient in terms of
sharing of information with the public at large, and the recordal of answers.
2.13.2.2
The so called public participation for a very complex and convoluted application was
entirely inadequate. For individuals, it consisted of an open day where no oral comments or
responses were recorded. There was no presentation of the merits, and reliance was
placed on questions placed by individuals to the specialists with no common sharing of
the information.
2.13.3
2.13.3.1
Inadequate public participation process
The public consultation process is still inadequate. Namely, the origins of the proposal
originated as a business venture, rather than out of an assessment of local and regional
needs. This means that all subsequent ‘consultation’ has been geared toward finding
justification for the proposal, rather than beginning from a base which first determined
local need, and then proposed suitable infrastructure arising out of this.
2.13.3.2
When
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
E
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
E
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
E
SANRAL, whose legal mandate is the financing, planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads, is proposing to realign and
upgrade the existing N2 between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and Durban (Isipingo
Interchange), as appropriate, to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and safer road link between
the Eastern Cape (and Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. SANRAL deems this a necessary
improvement to the national road network and considers the proposed project of strategic
importance to the region and the country as a whole. The public consultation process is undertaken
as part of the procedures associated with the legally required application for authorisation of the
proposed project, as per the requirements of the ECA EIA Regulations and NEMA, as appropriate.
E
Community consultation has been inadequate over the proposal.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.10.1 and 2.13.1.2 above.
E
2.13.3.3
SWC does not view ‘going through the motions’ to be an adequate application of
consultation, but that real consultation involves adequately addressing the concerns
expressed by public participants. That so many of the 2003/4 concerns still remain
unaddressed in the 2008 EIR is enough indication that the 2008 EIR has been deficient in
its consultation processes.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.13.1.2 above.
E
2.13.3.4
I can't imagine what the impact will be on our domestics who need to commute from Lovu
and other outlying areas. I further believe that these communities have not been informed.
Surely that is unacceptable and can be serious grounds for the whole proposal being
thrown out.
Consultation was undertaken with all traditional authorities in areas adjacent to the proposed N2
Wild Coast Toll Highway in KwaZulu-Natal.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
97
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
2.13.3.5
Deficient Public Participation process: Whose decision was it to release the EIR for
comment over the holiday period – again? Whose decision was it not to hold public
meetings outside KZN and EC – again? Both of these issues caused huge public
dissatisfaction previously and yet they are allowed to happen again – how on earth are
I&APs expected to have any confidence in a process which deliberately sets out to
undermine and prevent public input? As SANRAL is a publicly funded entity, it is a
disgrace that it has allowed, if not actually ordered this to happen. How and why these
decisions were made need to be answered, with legal dictates that SANRAL cannot
operate as a private entity.
The EIA team rejects any allegations of setting out “to undermine and prevent public input”.
Following a number of requests from I&APs and advice from the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism, the comment period for review of the Draft EIR, which commenced on 10
November 2008, was extended to 22 January 2009 to provide more time for I&APs to comment.
2.13.3.6
The EIA consultants have chosen to host “Public Open Days” as opposed to holding
public meetings as was the case in the previous round of public consultations. APCA
believes that it is not possible to gauge any broad public consensus on issues or to clearly
identify issues on which the public, as a collective, have strong feelings. There is also no
way of keeping record or minutes of the proceedings at a public open day as would be the
case for a public meeting. It is thus not possible for any party/person to refer back to any
issues covered at such an event should this become necessary at any stage in the future.
The members of APCA have gained the distinct impression that the EIA consultants were
paying mere lip service to meet the requirements of NEMA relative to public consultation,
while sidestepping those real issues that the public wished to raise, but which SANRAL,
the bidding consortium and/or the EIA consultants preferred to avoid or ignore. APCA’s
understanding of the public participation process is one in which the consulting team is to
engage with the public to not only explain certain issues that require clarification, but also,
more importantly, to LISTEN to the issues raised by the public. APCA gained the
impression that matters that did not suit the aims and objectives of the intention to toll the
N2 were fobbed off as being irrelevant or that there were sufficient mitigating factors to
overrule any such issues.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.13.1.2 above.
E
2.13.3.7
The process stipulated in the Final Scoping Report upon which the Draft Environmental
Impact Report is based is flawed which creates a fatal flaw throughout the Public
Participation Process of the EIR. The FSR stipulates information dissemination and
gathering of comments only which cannot be regarded as genuine involvement of
local people. This level of engagement that has been adopted is considered by the
International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) to be the very basic level of
‘Inform’.
“To include a formal public consultation process in the study, which specifically addresses
the distribution of information to Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs), provision of
opportunities for I&APs to raise any issues and concerns and provision of opportunities for
I&APs to comment on the EIA documentation;” (Final Scoping Report – Public
Consultation Process Report, P1)
There is debate in EIA circles as to what level of Public Participation (see attached
document for different PP levels) is necessary to be regarded as legally/ethically
adequate as many factors come into play. In this particular case though there is no
Refer to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.10.1 and 2.13.1.2 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
E
See also the response to Item 2.18.2 below.
98
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
debate. The only acceptable level is that of ‘Collaboration’ as defined by the International
Association of Public Participation (IAP2). The goal of this is to “partner with the public in
each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the
identification of the preferred solution”. The promise to the public that is being made using
this level is “We will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions
and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum
extent possible”. (IAP2). The imperative for this level rests in the points below:
• This proposal to build the Greenfields section of the road was initiated through an
unsolicited bid from a business consortium. Since no National, Provincial or Local
imperative for this particular road has been proven in either National, Provincial or
Local policy and planning documents (and nowhere in the EIR is a rationale based on
hard evidence given for the need for this section of the road) it is incumbent on
SANRAL to ascertain whether this road is actually required or whether it is purely for
private financial gain. Since the Greenfields section does not appear in any National
policy or planning document it is safe to assume that it is not strategically essential
and therefore the real benefit of this section of the proposed road must be proven to
be a local one if it is not to be purely for corporate financial gain. In order to do this an
intensive dialogue with local authorities and local people has to take place to discover
what local needs are. Since this dialogue did not take place prior (World Bank
regulations state that this should happen) to the EIA being initiated it is essential that it
then takes place during the EIA process. This then means that information
dissemination (as stated in the FSR) is a totally inappropriate PP tool as no
information collection has taken place at all which sidelines the needs, ideas and
opinions of local authorities and people from the outset. The only appropriate Public
Participation level for a process where the overall merits of a government project are
yet to be proven is that of collaboration, which was not adopted by this process.
• This is now (it was not the case in the first EIA which was rejected) a SANRAL
(government) proposed project and the government is accountable to its citizens.
Local authorities and people have a right to be part of the process which does not
mean sitting and listening to decisions and plans once they have been made and
being allowed to comment on them, but actually being part of the planning process.
This requires the PP to be at the level of collaboration, which was not adopted by this
process.
• NEMA has been ignored in the formulation of the Public Participation Process. In
Section 2(4)(f) of NEMA, “the participation of all I&APs must be promoted and all
people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity to
achieve equitable and effective participation, especially vulnerable and disadvantaged
persons. Section 2(4)(h) of NEMA also states that community wellbeing and
empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, raising of
environmental awareness and other appropriate means.” It is therefore incumbent
upon a Public Participation Process that is carried out on behalf of a government
department to facilitate the obligations under this legislation. This means that the
process is designed so as to incorporate an element of learning so that poorly western
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
99
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
educated or illiterate people are able to participate in full understanding. Information
dissemination (the adopted approach) in disadvantaged communities is actually
counter productive to the spirit of NEMA as those who do not understand the
information are reinforced as being ‘worthless’. Education/learning can only take place
at the level of collaboration, which was not adopted by this process.
• Section 2(4)(g) of NEMA states that decisions must take into account the interests,
needs and values of all interested and affected parties. This can only be done at a
level of collaboration, which was not adopted by this process.
• Indigenous People are defined on the World Bank website as being “ distinct
populations in that the land on which they live, and the natural resources on which
they depend, are inextricably linked to their identities and cultures”. The amaPondo
people are such a group. The main Greenfields section therefore transects the land of
Indigenous People and hence consultation of the highest order is essential. Whilst
Indigenous People are ignored in South Africa’s EIA Regulations and the Guidelines
on Public Participation, they are specifically mentioned in the World Bank’s.
o “The Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy provides higher consultation standards
than normally apply”. (World Bank website)
o “Consultation and Participation. Where the project affects Indigenous Peoples, the
borrower engages in free, prior, and informed consultation with them. To ensure
such consultation, the borrower:
ƒ (a)
establishes an appropriate gender and intergenerationally
inclusive framework that provides opportunities for consultation at each stage
of project preparation and implementation among the borrower, the affected
Indigenous Peoples’ communities, the Indigenous Peoples Organizations
(IPOs) if any, and other local civil society organizations (CSOs) identified by
the affected Indigenous Peoples' communities;
ƒ (b)
uses consultation methods11 appropriate to the social and cultural
values of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities and their local
conditions and, in designing these methods, gives special attention to the
concerns of Indigenous women, youth, and children and their access to
development opportunities and benefits; and
ƒ (c)
provides the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities with all
relevant information about the project (including an assessment of potential
adverse effects of the project on the affected Indigenous Peoples’
communities) in a culturally appropriate manner at each stage of project
preparation and implementation” (World Bank website)
This suggests a level of collaboration, which was not adopted by this process
• The South African government’s principle of Batho Pele should be applied. If people
are to come first their needs should be established which requires a level of
collaboration, which was not adopted by this process.
• Many elements of the International Labour Organisation’s Convention (no.169) on
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples can be quoted here but for the sake of brevity I will use
only Article 7
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
100
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
o “1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the
process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual
well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to
the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In
addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of
plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect
them directly.
o 2. The improvement of the conditions of life and work and levels of health and
education of the peoples concerned, with their participation and co-operation, shall
be a matter of priority in plans for the overall economic development of areas they
inhabit. Special projects for development of the areas in question shall also be so
designed as to promote such improvement.
o 3. Governments shall ensure that, whenever appropriate, studies are carried out,
in co-operation with the peoples concerned, to assess the social, spiritual, cultural
and environmental impact on them of planned development activities. The results
of these studies shall be considered as fundamental criteria for the implementation
of these activities.
o 4. Governments shall take measures, in co-operation with the peoples concerned,
to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit.
This makes explicit the level of collaboration, which was not adopted by this process.
Hence the Public Participation Practitioners (Nomi Muthialu & Associates) and their client
(SANRAL) are bound to collaborate with the public and not to merely inform. Information
dissemination is what has occurred. Collaboration has not. The EIR is fatally flawed
through its Public Participation approach.
2.13.3.8
I was told by a consultant that DEAT considers this PPP to be one of the most intensive to
date. In my professional opinion it still falls far short of a desired state. It is not the
quantity of meetings that should be considered but the quality of the interaction that has
taken place within those meetings. If people are not able to participate meaningfully the
process is immediately negated. If the quality of interaction is poor and people leave no
better informed than before the process is negated. If the people are not able to submit
comments in writing because they are illiterate or do not know how to say what they need
to, the process is negated. This has most certainly been the case with the people with
whom I work on the Wild Coast. Even though the FSR states that over 100 meetings have
been held there is the possibility that they have been completely ineffective.
I have been working with 6 communities in the Xolobeni area for the last year on social,
cultural and environmental issues. Because of the lack of information on the road and the
confusion that misinformation was causing in the communities, I was asked to do a
workshop to provide the information that no one else was providing. The workshop was
culturally based, conducted in amaPondo, action learning biased, geared to the illiterate
and informationally objective. The uncontested outcome was that the proposed road
satisfies none of their needs and they will not support it.
One of the World Bank’s criteria for accepting a project is broad support from the local
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.10.1, 2.13.1.2 and 2.13.3.4 above.
101
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Indigenous People.
“The Bank reviews the process and the outcome of the consultation carried out by the
borrower to satisfy itself that the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities have
provided their broad support to the project. The Bank pays particular attention to the
social assessment and to the record and outcome of the free, prior, and informed
consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities as a basis for
ascertaining whether there is such support. The Bank does not proceed further with
project processing if it is unable to ascertain that such support exists” (World Bank
website)
A CCA consultant told me that the road had received uncontested support from all local
people. I know first hand that this is not the case. I submit that if this is the impression of
the consultants it is because the local people do not have ‘balanced and objective
information’. I do not believe that either the consultants or SANRAL are doing this
purposefully. But I do believe that they do not know how to run a free and fair process
because of a lack of cultural and educational understanding. A project of this magnitude
cannot be given approval on the basis that it is supported by the majority of local people
until such time as local people are sufficiently empowered to make the decisions that are
rightly theirs to make.
I was also told by the consultant that all the correct procedures had been followed
regarding consultation with Traditional Leaders. In a telephonic conversation today
(Tuesday 20th Jan 2009) with Princess Wezizwe Sigcau (who verified the information she
had given me with Queen Masobhuza Sigcau and then phoned me back) I was informed
that no member of the Great Place at Quakeni has been approached by anyone with
respect to feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (although she has received
documentation in the post). Neither does the Queen know of any other Traditional Leader
who has been consulted. She had heard of consultants going to a local Headman but the
consultants were ‘chased away’. This raises the question as to the validity of the
consultant’s statement. This also makes me question the quality of the many ‘imbizos’
that the FSR states were held. Did they solicit opinions and input from local leaders or
were they merely an announcement of the project? There is no way to tell this from the
EIR.
From a communications perspective the script of the information video supplied as an
appendix to the FSR and I assume used at these ‘imbizos’ is totally irrelevant as a
communications tool as it has no consideration for non-western educated people. It is
completely removed from their knowledge base, has no linkages to their culture and
would have totally alienated the audience. It shows a lack of understanding on the part of
the consultants as to who the people are with whom they are dealing and how crosscultural communication works. As stipulated by the World Bank it is imperative that
techniques used in the Public Participation Process are culturally appropriate which
implies meaningful and courteous.
How then can this consultant tell me that the road has received “full support from local
people”? And where is the documentation to this effect?
World Bank policy also states
“The Indigenous Peoples Policy is the only Bank operational policy that references
human rights; the policy is to ensure that the development process fully respects the
dignity, human rights, economies and cultures of indigenous peoples.” (World Bank
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
102
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
2.13.3.9
Perhaps the greatest deficiency of the draft EIAR is that it conceals the fact that the public
consultation process was wholly inadequate and consequently many affected
communities have been denied their legal right to participate effectively in the process and
many of their concerns have not been identified, assessed or reported on. Many of the
communities, including our clients, are aggrieved by the inadequate consultation and
accordingly strongly opposed to the finalisation of the EIAR report without significant
further consultation with them.
South African law requires that interested and affected parties should be given a genuine
opportunity to be heard. before the mind of the decision-maker becomes fixed. Merely
holding meetings where there is no possibility that the process or the outcome will be
affected, does not meet the requirements for proper consultation1. Furthermore the right
to dignity demands that people be allowed to participate meaningfully in matters that will
affect them2, and particularly where it will affect matters of fundamental importance such
as their attachment to the place where they reside3.
This means that interested and affected parties such as our clients must have the nature
and implications of the Project fully explained to them in language that they understand,
must be given an opportunity to ask questions, and sufficient time and opportunity to be
meaningfully heard. Their concerns and views must then be taken into account in
investigating, assessing and reporting on the potential impacts of the Project.
The inadequacies of the public participation process is clear from the fact that when we
consulted our clients they had a number of real concerns and unanswered questions
about the Project and the EIA process, which are not recorded in the draft EIAR despite
the fact that they are reported to have been consulted.
1 Doctors for Life International v Speaker of the National Assembly 2006 (6) SA 416 (CC)
at para 244; Merafong Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of
South Africa and Others, CCT 41/07, unreported judgment Constitutional Court of 13 June
2008 at paras 46 and 51.
2 Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and
Others (2) 2007 (1) BCLR 47 (CC) at paras 66-67.
3 Matatiele at paras 79-80.
These opinions are noted. Refer further to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.10.1, 2.13.1.2 and
2.13.3.4 above.
E
2.13.3.10
Some of the land within the Amadiba Tribal Authority is subject to a land claim. In
addition, there is a Communal Property Association in this area which acts as a custodian
of the land in question on behalf of the larger group of land claimants. This Association
was not consulted at all about the effects of the proposed development on their land. This
failure is part of the general failure by the consultants to conduct proper and adequate
consultation with affected communities.
Noted – refer to Section 12.2.10, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR and the specialist
planning/development report (Volume 4, Appendix 12).
E
website)
It is my contention that this is not the case with respect to the proposed Greenfields
section of the Wild Coast Toll Road. The original unsolicited bid was not put forward with
the concerns of the Indigenous People in mind, SANRAL has not investigated the needs
of the Indigenous People and the Public Participation Process has not been geared
towards ensuring the full participation of the Indigenous People.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Members of the Khimbili Trust attended meetings on the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway
during the comment periods for both the DSR and Draft EIR. They were also given the contact
details of the relevant person at SANRAL and requested to contact that person should they wish to
have a further meeting with SANRAL, which SANRAL indicated to them they were willing to hold.
103
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.13.3.11
The lack of proper communication by the South African National Road Agency Limited
(SANRAL) and its appointed consultants with the Sobonakhona Traditional Council
community. Regarding their intention to build a new Toll Road through the Eastern
Cape, it has been brought to the STC's attention that SANRAL have been holding
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) meetings in the mainly white areas around
Amanzimtoti.
The STC objects that these meetings have been held without adequate notification to either
our council or those of the neighbouring amakhosi. It is the function of the STC to keep its
people informed as most of them are largely illiterate. Generally our people are below the
breadline, have insufficient money to live on, and are unlikely to be able to afford to buy a
newspaper in which obscure notices are placed.
The STC believes SANRAL's meetings have failed miserably as a public participation exercise
and that all information and minutes prepared by them / their consultants be declared invalid,
undemocratic and unconstitutional.
Please be advised that transport arrangements were made in person with the Sobonakhona
Traditional Council four weeks in advance of the Public Open Day at Amanzimtoti on 18 November
2009. The Sobonakhona Traditional Council requested that transport for 60 people be provided
and arrangements were made with Thathawe Transport to provide four taxis for this purpose. This
transport was provided and members of the Sobonakhona Traditional Council and the local
community attended the Public Open Day at Amanzimtoti.
E
2.13.3.12
I am very concerned that the social impact studies are vulnerable to manipulation. Both
rural and more developed communities can appreciate the benefits of a project when they
are highlighted for them, but unfortunately the experience in this region is that
presentations by proponents are biased and do not give sufficient information or weight to
the possible negative impacts. Less educated people rarely challenge the statements of
experts, however outrageous, therefore the professionalism of those experts is critical,
and any bias is unacceptable. Farmers and residents who are going to lose their land, or
who will be vulnerable to the negative impacts of living near a major road, seem largely
unaware of the disadvantages. This seems to indicate that the communications were not
adequate, although it is accepted that it is not always easy to achieve a fair balance.
The social specialist has indicated that great care was taken to ensure that social categories of
people were able to express their views on both potential benefits and disadvantages that would
arise from the proposed greenfields route, and on key aspects of their livelihoods. All were made
aware of any disadvantages, and expressed their views regarding these, and on any recommended
mitigation (refer to Appendix 3 of the social specialist report in Volume 3, Appendix 5 of the
Draft/Final EIR).
E
2.13.3.13
I have been contacted by a resident who claims that a surveyor was encountered on their
property without permission, claiming he was there to assess the land needed for
expropriation. SANRAL denied this. However, they admitted that they might need to
demolish some infrastructure, so it seems probable that expropriation may occur, and that
there will be other impacts; for example there is a restriction on construction near a
national road, which will reduce the potential use of properties along the route. There
appears to be no public awareness of this, which indicates that the process has failed to
properly inform directly affected parties of the possible and probable negative impacts,
including the potential loss of value of their property. The failure of communications is a
fatal flaw in the process.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.13.3.12 above.
E
2.13.3.14
It was noted that the public open days were held along the SANRAL preferred route, but
not in places like Kokstad, Harding, Mount Ayliff, and Mount Frere, places which are most
likely to suffer only negative impacts. Even the meeting at Holy Cross Community Hall is
significantly distant from the important nodes of Bizana and Flagstaff, and limits their
accessibility to the opportunity for interaction. This is a serious flaw in the public
participation process.
Besides the Public Open Days held at central locations along the proposed (SANRAL preferred)
route during the comment period on the Draft EIR, I&APs were also provided with an adequate
opportunity to review and provide comment on the Draft EIR. In the week preceding the start of the
comment period all I&APs on the project database, including those residing in the mentioned towns,
were sent a letter notifying them of the availability of the report and where it will be made available
for review and comment, together with a copy of the Draft EIR Executive Summary. The full report
was duly made available at relevant public libraries/venues in the mentioned towns as well as on
the CCA and SANRAL websites.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Also, the information presented at the Public Open Days was prepared by independent specialists.
Study findings and recommendations on the potential negative and positive impacts of the
proposed development were presented and discussed in an objective manner.
104
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.13.3.15
With regards to I&APs the affected members have not been properly dealt with and
addressed with regards to this issue. One or two meetings at whatever date and time is
insufficient with regards to such a large scale project. Affected parties in the rural areas,
who could not access the Amanzimtoti Civic Centre for instance, should be included more
significantly as they have not been properly addressed. Not all I&APs have full knowledge
about this proposal, thus the EIA is irrelevant and incorrect and thus this proposal should
not proceed.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.13.3.11 above.
2.13.3.16
Not enough time and effort was put into informing many residents of Amanzimtoti. If it had
not been for a newspaper informing my family of today’s meeting I, and I think many other
families, would not have made it to the EIA presentation in time to oppose the building of
the toll road.
The public consultation process was informed by the relevant EIA Regulations and Guideline
Document issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. In this regard it is
considered that the extensive public participation that has been undertaken has gone well beyond
the requirements. This is illustrated by the fact that, amongst others, the announcement of the
availability of the Draft EIR was placed in 22 national, regional and local newspapers, and was
announced 12 times daily for three days on three radio stations in KwaZulu-Natal and four radio
stations in the Eastern Cape targeting rural listeners in the study area. 9285 I&APs on the
database of registered I&APs were notified in writing of the availability of the Draft EIR and the
Public Open Days and copies of the Executive Summary were distributed to all I&APs on the
database. Copies of the Executive Summary were also made available in English, Afrikaans,
isiXhosa and isiZulu upon request and were available at all Public Open Days. 17 Public Open
Days were held at central locations along the proposed route and transport was provided from
outlying areas to the nearest Public Open Day venue. Transport arrangements were made well in
advance through the traditional authorities and local taxis or busses were used to transport people
to the venues. More than 3 200 people attended the Public Open Days.
E
2.13.3.17
Many residents of Durban should also be informed as the Prospecton area and Southgate
Industrial Park have many people who work there who commute from Durban and I think
they have not been consulted on this matter.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.16 above.
E
2.13.3.18
The consultations seem to be a formality that I am not sure will assist.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.3.13.6 above.
E
2.13.3.19
In our location (Corana) we were not informed about the toll highway.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.13.1.2 and 2.13.3.16 above. A meeting was arranged in
Corana through the traditional authorities and ward councillor during the comment period for the
DSR and was attended by 37 people. Transport was also arranged through the traditional
authorities to take people from Zithathele/Corana to the Public Open Day in Mthatha on 20
November 2009.
E
2.13.3.20
Next time there should be food, not coffee and biscuits.
Noted.
E
2.13.4
2.13.4.1
Documentation submitted during the EIA
Correspondence submitted during the process and minutes of meetings have not been
included. From the Clients’ perspective this would include three focus group meetings (2
of which were initiated by the Clients), correspondence with the EIA specialist relating to
the economic study that should be carried out in the EIA process, and correspondence
relating to the final scoping report and the plan of study for the EIA.
This is incorrect. Appendix 1 of the social specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 5 of the Draft/Final
EIR) includes relevant minutes of meetings/focus groups held during the social impact assessment
study. Minutes of meetings/focus groups inadvertently omitted from this Appendix have been
included in an Addendum to the social specialist report (see Volume 5 of the Final EIR). Relevant
correspondence received during the “specialist studies” stage has been included in the Final EIR,
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
105
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
as appropriate (refer to Volume 1, Appendix C of the Final EIR).
2.13.5
2.13.5.1
Information presented at Public Open Days
Although some details and environmental impacts seem to have been provided in the EIA
for the proposed upgrade at Isipingo they were not portrayed at the open days.
2.13.5.2
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.12 above. The information provided on posters was a holistic
view of the entire project. Maps showing the proposed project in the local area were displayed at all
Public Open Days and these indicated the scope of the project in that specific area. Full copies of
the Draft EIR were also available for review at the Public Open Days.
E
Documents should be in Afrikaans. 40% of Amanzimtoti is Afrikaans speaking.
The Executive Summary of the Draft EIR was available in Afrikaans at all Public Open Days.
E
2.13.5.3
The display in the Amanzimtoti Civic Centre was a white wash as it hides the real
proponents of such a toll road that will seriously impact on a well established commuter
route to Durban and not related to south coast access.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.5.1 above.
E
2.13.5.4
Why are there no Afrikaans posters because some of us really battle to understand the
terms. There are Zulu posters but very few Zulus were present at Amanzimtoti.
The Executive Summary of the Draft EIR was available in Afrikaans at all Public Open Days. There
were also many Afrikaans speakers in the project team present in Amanzimtoti who were also
available to answer any questions that people may have had.
E
2.13.5.5
The maps should be improved / changed so that they show where children will be
crossing when they are going to school and where our livestock will graze.
This information is currently unavailable - as mentioned in Section 2.3 (Assumptions and
Limitations), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “it is assumed that finalisation of the number and
locations of required overpasses and underpasses to facilitate community access to resources,
services, etc. would be determined in consultation with affected communities during the detailed
design phase”.
E
2.13.6
2.13.6.1
Capacity building
Whatever final decision is taken would not come from us the indigenous people of the
area. This is because we lack the capacity to fully understand the issues involved. The
whole exercise of coming to us is just window dressing.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.13.1.2 above.
E
2.14
2.14.1
•
Petitions
Regarding the Objection for the N2 Highway Toll Road, may I suggest that you also have
this form converted to into isiZulu / iziXhosa to cater for people who cannot speak, write or
read English, these are typically hostel dwellers from the Southern KZN (Port Shepstone;
Kokstad, Ixopo; Mzimkhulu; etc) and Eastern Cape (Mthatha; Mt Ayliff; etc) who work in
Durban who will be affected by this project? This would also help in ensuring that this
Objection reaches a critical mass which is required to petition relevant authorities.
The document referred to was not produced as part of the EIA and is an external document
produced by people opposed to the toll road.
E
2.15
2.15.1
2.15.1.1
•
Failure to take into consideration concerns of stakeholders
Failure to take into consideration the concerns of stakeholders
Despite a huge amount of opposition from many parties (including the communities
themselves), this project is pushed forward, regardless.
Refer to the response to Items 2.10.1 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
106
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
2.15.1.2
My major concern is that you have shown absolutely no regard to any of the previous
comments made from the people in our community (Amanzimtoti).
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.3 above.
Response
E
When
2.15.1.3
No alternatives were presented for the upper South Coast area to the Isipingo
Interchange - Numerous comments were made requesting that an alternative further
inland be investigated. This must be done.
Alternative alignments which seemed feasible in terms of meeting the key objectives of the
proposed project (improved road access and linkage to the region while reducing road user costs
and optimising safety and socio-economic benefits) were included in the FSR and analysed for
comparison with either the proposed project between Mthatha and Port Shepstone or SANRAL’s
preferred route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (refer to Section 5.2.5 of the FSR).
E
According to SANRAL, an outer, outer ring road from Winklespruit that goes inland was planned by
the provincial Department of Transport in the 1970’s and was known as MR579 and MR577. The
latter road has only partially been completed – the final stages are now about to be completed
across the Mgeni River. SANRAL has indicated that the southern parts of MR577 and the whole of
MR579 have been abandoned because they are considered no longer economically or
environmentally feasible.
2.15.1.4
Many public concerns raised in 2003 have still not been addressed or overcome in the
2008 process.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.3 above. Also, the EIA team and SANRAL have been advised
that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the
jurisdiction of DEA and the Appeal Authority. To deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA
would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the
determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, and must
take place in accordance therewith. The Act itself specifically requires a public participation
process for the Declaration of a Toll road. To the extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments
and representations made during the public participation process undertaken in terms of the Act,
aggrieved parties are entitled to review the decision. It was advised that issues and concerns
relating to tolling and associated socio-economic impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but
be merely captured in the relevant documentation and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for
consideration during the Declaration of Toll road process.
E
2.15.1.5
From the general consensus this would be an awful problem for the whole local south
coast. I have not had one official give me a satisfactory answer as to why this Toll needs
to be so close to a major residential area. It would be like placing a toll between
Umhlanga and Durban, that would never be allowed to go ahead yet it seems there is no
problem with us bearing the brunt. But I am sure no matter how much the community
disagrees with this issue some pig will still give the go ahead… which of course is typical.
Refer to the response to Item 2.10.1 above.
E
2.15.1.6
NMA are completely insensitive and refuse to listen to the objections of the residents who
are not against the toll road per se, but the unnecessarily high safety risks (for residents
along Kingsway) and the financial implications.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.3.3 and 2.15.1.4 above. Also, please be advised that,
although information related to the potential social and economic impacts of tolling would not be
used by DEA in its decision-making on the proposed project, the EIA project team deemed it
prudent to include consideration of certain toll funding-related aspects in the Impact Assessment
phase of the EIA process (refer to Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
2.15.1.7
For a government that claims to heed the concerns of communities it has successfully
ignored this community’s protests with regards to this toll road!
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.13.3.3 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
107
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
2.15.1.8
As a South African (and a proud one) I have to ask why, when the volume of influential
people is so many and so unanimous, does something like this continue?
Response
Refer to the response to Item 2.10.1 above. Ultimately, after submission of all the relevant
environmental reports, the competent environmental authority must determine whether to refuse or
grant environmental authorisation for the proposed activity or any identified feasible alternative.
When
E
The procedures to be followed for the Notice of Intent for Declaration of a Toll Road are stipulated
in the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998. In particular, section 27(4) of the Act provides that
the Minister of Transport will not give approval for the declaration of a toll road unless written notice
has been given of the proposed declaration and the approximate position of the toll plaza and
interested persons have been invited to comment and make representations on the proposed
declaration and the position of the toll plaza.
2.15.1.9
I will not attempt to go into further detail of the whole EIA report once again - all of the
process and content issues have been raised many times previously– during the multiple
steps of the first EIA process, by the Independent Review of the 1st EIA, during the
Scoping Phase of the 2nd EIA and now again in commenting on the draft EIR - and
consistently either ignored or continual fallacious arguments put forward to try and justify
the proposals.
The specialists and EIA team reject any allegations of consistently ignoring relevant issues or
continually putting forward “fallacious arguments” to “try and justify the proposals”.
E
2.15.1.10
No responses are ever received by I&APs to the concerns raised in these responses
submitted – for example, the SANRAL project website does not contain the listed
Appendix 14: Comments and Responses on DSR, no similar document is available for the
FSR, and neither is the listed Appendix 15: Minutes of Workshops.
The mentioned FSR documentation was duly made available as per the respective notifications
sent to I&APs during the various stages of the EIA process. The respective reports were also made
available on CD on request.
E
2.15.1.11
I can’t help but wonder if this action of your company is a bulling tactic and no matter what
is said by the people and council of the greater Durban and Southern Council regions is
going to mean a thing to you as by your actions and body language of the statements and
actions of your company you intend to go ahead with the toll road, no matter what, which I
believe is unconstitutional and if need be, will take this matter the constitutional court, with
the backing of Big Business from the Isipingo and South Coast areas. If this toll road
goes ahead in its present form it will show that your company has total contempt for the
local communities, councils who oppose this toll venture and therefore is unconstitutional
and will take the fight further if need be.
Refer to the response to Item 2.10.1 above. Ultimately, after submission of all the relevant
environmental reports, the competent environmental authority must determine whether to refuse or
grant environmental authorisation for the proposed activity or any identified feasible alternative.
E
One of the terms of reference of the current EIA is to “. . . undertake a comprehensive
audit of all the issues and concerns raised during the previous EIA’s Scoping Study,
Impact Assessment and Appeals phases in order to identify key shortcomings and/or
gaps that need to be addressed in the current EIA.” Key shortcomings and gaps were
identified by USCATA and APCA, et al, during both the previous and the current EIA
processes, that appear to have simply been brushed aside by the EIA consultant teams.
The lack of proper engagement with I&APs is covered under item 9 of this submission.
These include the omission in the Scoping Study of any consideration of the negative
socio-economic impact of the proposed siting of toll plazas between daily commuters’
places of work and their places of residence.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.3.16, 2.15.1.4 and 2.15.1.6 above.
2.15.1.12
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The procedures to be followed for the Notice of Intent for Declaration of a Toll Road are stipulated
in the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998.
108
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
2.15.1.13
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
The EIAR fails to address a number of issues which are critical to the communities of the
Wild Coast, particularly the communities falling under the Amadiba Tribal Authority.
These communities were not consulted about the proposed route of the toll road. For
example, despite the concerns expressed by the communities they were not informed
about critical issues such as the location of bridges for the people and underpasses for
animals, nor about how compensation for demolition of their properties would be
calculated in the event that the Project is approved. They were also not informed about
the type of jobs that would be created by the Project.
The specialist studies fail to detail what type of skills the Project will require. This prevents
the communities from evaluating the potential benefits of the Project to them in the event
that it is approved.
Response
A detailed motivation for the proposed project route is presented in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR.
When
E
As mentioned in Section 2.3 (Assumptions and Limitations), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “it is
assumed that finalisation of the number and locations of required overpasses and underpasses to
facilitate community access to resources, services, etc. would be determined in consultation with
affected communities during the detailed design phase”.
According to SANRAL, it would be obliged to follow the principles as set out in Section 25 of the
Constitution. Compensation would be effected via extensive consultation with the relevant
authorities and directly affected persons and would be fair and equitable. Ultimately, SANRAL
would be obliged to ensure that no person shall be worse off when compared to their current
situation.
The economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) adequately identified and assessed
potential negative and positive economic impacts of the proposed toll highway in relation to “net
societal welfare”.
2.15.1.14
There appears to be a lack of consultation and consideration of those views held by the
same people who are going to be directly affected by the imposition of a toll road at
Isipingo. I thought more consideration would be given to the ANC led eThekwini
Municipality views on this as they are responsible for the electorate and reflect their views.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1, 2.13.3.16 and 2.15.1.8 above.
E
2.15.1.15
Consultation on this matter is extremely important and the interests of the people should
be put first.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.1.1, 2.13.1.2 and 2.13.3.16 above.
E
2.15.1.16
The turnout of concerned residents at the presentation at Amanzimtoti Town Hall on 18
November 2008 is sufficient reason to please review the toll plazas which will impact
financially on residents.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.10.1 and 2.15.1.8 above.
E
2.16
2.16.1
2.16.1.1
•
Comment Period
The comment period for the DEIR was inadequate
Your new draft gives very little time for public comment.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.5 above.
E
2.16.1.2
The date for submission should be extended to the 18th February 2009 - we are once
again being subjected to do a lot of work during the December period which was the stunt
they pulled before. Our people can hardly be ready one week after the Documents appear
in our Libraries to be informed enough to make appropriate responses.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.5 above.
E
2.16.1.3
Given that the last Public Open Day, to which members of the public are invited to attend
specialist exhibitions outlining the proposal, falls on Wednesday 10 December, and given
the large number of public holidays that occur over the December/ January festive
season, it is SWC opinion that a comment due date for written comments by Friday 9
January 2009 is insufficient in terms of meeting satisfactory consultation obligations in
terms of public participation processes.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.5 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
109
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.16.1.4
Please be advised that this submission constitutes a preliminary comment on the draft
EIA. Further time and specialist attention is required in order to compile a significant
response. Accordingly this submission will be supplemented in due course. In that regard
we submit that the time frame - till 9 January 2009 - within which to make submissions, is
entirely inadequate for the nature of such a proposed development, and the
documentation etc that has to be perused. It also requires specialist input to assist in its
interpretation. Further, the period 15 December to 2nd January is generally regarded as
‘closed days’. Accordingly a full submission from the clients will be lodged by 28th February
2009. We suggest that all interested and affected parties are given the same time period
for submissions. Kindly acknowledge receipt and confirmation of the notice that we will be
submitting a further response before 28 February 2009.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.3.5 above. The extension of the comment period to 22 January
2009 provided a total of eight weeks to comment on the Draft EIR, excluding the period 15
December to 2 January. The guidelines recommend a six-week comment period and it is believed
that eight weeks is sufficient time to comment on the Draft EIR.
E
2.16.1.5
Please note that the extension period to 22nd January is not sufficient for my business to
submit sufficient comment. As you are well aware that the period over December up until
12 January is the traditional Christmas holiday and seen as a “closed period”.
Professional engineers and consultant that are assisting me with the comments have
closed their practices and will only re-open on 12 January 2009. It is requested that the
period be extended until 28 February 2009 in order to prepare a proper submission.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.6
I regret to advise that the period until the 22nd January 2009 provides insufficient time to
view the report and make submissions. Under the circumstances, we would suggest that
you amend the date to the 27th February 2009.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.7
Thank you for your email of the 9th December 2008 acknowledging receipt of our clients’
preliminary comments.
The comments are a summary of what the specialists that have been appointed by the
clients will elaborate upon. CCA was advised of the intention to appoint specialists at the
meeting held at the Toyota offices in Prospecton, Durban on 25 September 2007 attendees being, inter alia, Professor G Maasdorp, Jon van Coller of Vancometrix, Greg
Huggins the social consultant, Professors Pienaar and Bester, the economic consultants,
and Mr Theuns Lamprecht, the traffic consultant. At that meeting it was indicated that
Professor Gavin Maasdorp of Imani Development would be appointed to assist in
assessing the economic impacts emanating from the proposal. Obviously the detail of
this could only be undertaken on receipt of the draft EIR. As a result of the contents of the
EIR the clients also wish to employ the services of a traffic engineer. To achieve this
before the 22nd January 2009 will not be possible, and this time frame for comment is not
a reasonable period as required by the National Environmental Management Act, 1998
and the relevant regulations both from our clients’ perspective and the public in general
for the following reasons:
• Public meetings were only concluded on 11 December 2008. ( one of the clients is an
interested and affected party from the area the last meeting relates to - Scottburgh)
• The reports are voluminous requiring much time and effort to consider.
• For the general public, the reports are cumbersome to copy or to take off the internet.
• The closed period for Departments generally in respect of environmental impact
assessments is from 12 December to 9 January.
• The comment period should effectively be calculated in the New Year after the 9th
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
110
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
January 2009.
• Accordingly, the time period proposed does not amount to proper consultation
It is simply not possible to undertake and finalize specialist reports of this nature given
that the EIR has been disseminated for public comment over the Christmas season, and
the constraints inherent during this holiday period. That having been said every endeavor
will be made to submit the specialist reports to you as soon as possible but before the end
of February 2009. The specialist reports are being undertaken in the utmost good faith to
the benefit of all involved in this application. We trust that the necessary weight and
consideration will be given to those reports.
When
2.16.1.8
The DCCI believes that the closing date of 09 January 2009 for the submission of opinions Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
on the issue is unrealistic in view of customary business closures during the Christmas
holiday period, and therefore requests that this be extended to 28 February 2009 to give
objectors adequate time to prepare more detailed submissions.
E
2.16.1.9
We the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance do hereby request an extension
by the 30th January 2009 to provide comment for this important development that will
affect thousands of residents that reside in our localities. We have been closed since the
15th December and as explained only opened up the office yesterday to start the new
year work. As a fore most environmental organization we are informing you that the time
frames are not reasonable and we are unable to meet your deadline of the 22nd January
2009. We request your urgent assistance to grant this extension to the 30th January
2009.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.10
I am currently compiling the comments on the proposed N2 toll road, however I
desperately require an extension of time to submit the comments as I have not yet
received information on the position of the political structures of Umdoni Municipality on
the project. The Council of Umdoni Municipality is currently in recess, and has been so
since early December. The Council was unable to conclude deliberations on the Project
prior to recess. Regretfully due to the nature, complexity and scale of the project is
imperative that I obtain input from the relevant political so the comments are in line with
the Council's stance on the project. I sincerely request for an extension of a week, to the
29 January 2009, in order that I may complete the comments.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.11
The time frames given to comment on the EIR, particularly for in depth and specialist
comment are unreasonable given the holiday season it fell over. The 6 week period
should have commenced at the de facto beginning of 2009, being about 12 January 2009.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.12
My association requests that the date of submission for comments be extended to the 20
February 2009.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.16.1.13
We believe that the commenting period is unrealistic and the Christmas holiday period should
be considered and request an extension be granted to 15 March 2009 in order to give the
affected communities an opportunity to submit their objection.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
111
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
2.16.1.14
The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) hereby confirms that it is an Interested and Affected
Party (I&AP) in this regard. The EWT is unfortunately not in a position to make a full submission
today, but will endeavor to provide you with additional comments within the next two weeks.
The EWT endorses and supports the comments submitted by Dr Nicholas King (who is also a
Board Member of the EWT) on the 21st of January 2009. In order not to duplicate any existing
submission by our sister organizations, it would be valued if you could possibly forward key
submissions to Ms Anique Greyling. As an I&AP, the EWT confirms our willingness to engage
in any future public or other processes in this regard. We also reserve the right, to take any
decision on appeal / review if so required.
Noted. Due to the fact that several thousands of submissions were received it was not possible to
select “key” submissions from “sister” organisations for onward forwarding to EWT.
E
2.16.2
2.16.2.1
The comment period for the DEIR was deliberately timed for the holiday period
The period for comment is deviously designed to fall into the Christmas and New Year
period.
The EIA team rejects any allegations of “deviously” designing the comment period to “fall into the
Christmas and New Year period”.
E
2.16.2.2
SWC is extremely dismayed that, once again, in a repeat of the 2003 debacle, the public
comment period for the EIR coincides with the December / January holiday period, a
commonly acknowledged leave period for a vast number of public organizations and
members of the general public.
Refer to the response to Item 2.16.1.4 above.
E
2.17
2.17.1
2.17.1.1
•
Distribution of Documents for Review
Distribution of DEIR
As your report is available in Kwa-Zulu Natal from Durban to Kokstad, and from Bizana to
East London, on behalf of our Association, I feel that Port Alfred should have been included
in your survey.
The Draft EIR was made available in libraries and public places throughout the study area. All
registered I&APs received a copy of the Executive Summary of the report. The report was also
available on two websites for I&APs from areas outside the study area who wanted to review the
report in detail.
E
2.17.1.2
Why not Pietermaritzburg, Bulwer and Underberg Libraries also? We are all going to be
affected by this disastrous proposal.
Refer to the response to Item 2.17.1.1 above.
E
2.17.2
2.17.2.1
Public Participation documentation
It is recommended that all public participation documentation including correspondence
that has been submitted to the consultants since after the draft scoping phase be included
in a Public Participation document which must also be made available for public scrutiny.
It is important for the public to be apprised of other interested parties’ concerns and how
they are being affected, if in the same way.
Comments received on the DSR are included in Appendix 14 of the FSR, while Appendix 10 of the
FSR contains the Public Consultation Process Report. Refer further to the response to Item
2.13.4.1 above.
E
2.17.2.2
There is no ‘Public Participation’ document. For public matter such as this it is necessary
for members of the public to ascertain whether concerns are mutual or not and whether
they have been attended to. The nature of the public participation in this instance has
precluded this.
This is incorrect. Appendices 9 and 14 of the FSR comprise the Comments and Responses Report
on the BID and DSR, respectively, while Appendix 10 of the FSR contains the Public Consultation
Process Report. Appendix E of the Final EIR contains NMA’s Public Consultation Process Report
on the Draft EIR while Volume 5 of the Final EIR comprises the Comments and Responses Report
on the Draft EIR, including copies of written submissions received.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
112
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
2.18
2.18.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Request for Additional Meetings
We urgently request that full answers to these questions be addressed at a Public
Meeting at our Toti Civic Centre the third week in January 2009 at 19h00, to
which SANRAL and their Independent Consultants invite Traffic & Transport Specialists,
who we can verify as truly Independent, who can explain to us in clear terms the strategic
and future scenarios of how - Transport within our Metropolitan Area is going to
addressed and whether Tolling the N2 fits in with the plans. That the Metropolitan,
Provincial and National Departments responsible for Transport in all its forms Ports, Road,
Rail and Pipelines be fully represented and show their agreement with the plans. That the
meeting be chaired by an Independent person - a Judge for instance.
Response
When
According to SANRAL, Government policy and planning in respect all transport-related matters are
dealt with by the Department of Transport under the auspices of the National Master Transport
Plan. Indeed, the eThekwini Municipality and the KwaZulu-Natal transport department, as well as
SANRAL, are part of this process.
E
The overall procedure undertaken for soliciting comment on the Draft EIR is considered adequate in
terms of meeting the requirements of the ECA EIA Regulations and is in accordance with the
accepted Plan of Study for EIA. Thus, any public meeting relating to the “strategic and future
scenarios of how transport within [y]our Metropolitan Area is going to [be] addressed and whether
tolling the N2 fits in with the plans”, is considered outside the terms of reference of the EIA.
Refer further to the responses to Items 2.15.1.4 and 2.15.1.6 above.
2.18.2
SWC is gravely concerned at the lack of public participation workshops outside the
Provinces of Eastern Cape and Kwa-zulu Natal. The EIR claims that the N2 Toll road is
an infrastructure proposal with National significance. As such, it is likely to have
repercussions outside of the Kwa-Zulu Natal / Eastern Cape region. The complete dearth
of public participation workshops outside of the two stated provinces raises questions
about the inclusiveness of the process, particularly as there are close commercial and
tourism links between Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape and neighbouring provinces
such as Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Free State which could possibly be impacted upon by
the N2 development.
The overall procedure undertaken for soliciting comment on the Draft EIR is considered adequate in
terms of meeting the requirements of the ECA EIA Regulations and is in accordance with the
accepted Plan of Study for EIA. I&APs on the project database from outside the Eastern Cape and
KwaZulu-Natal duly received a copy of the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR and were able to
view the full report on two websites. The full report was also made available on CD on request.
E
2.18.3
Given that the proposal is stated as being in the national interest, why were public
consultation meetings not held in other major centres such as Gauteng?
Refer to the response to Item 2.18.2 above.
E
2.18.4
A National Road is obviously of national interest, hence the title, “National” road.
Considering the population numbers of Gauteng, people from the Gauteng area are likely
to utilise such a road. Yet... no public meetings were held in Gauteng! Why?
Refer to the response to Item 2.18.2 above.
E
2.18.5
My association requests a public meeting to be held in Isipingo in January 2009, to address the
concerns of the community with regard to the proposed tolling of the N2.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.18.1 above.
E
2.18.6
A public meeting is essential to hear the objections of those concerned.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.18.1 above.
E
2.18.7
Call a public meeting to answer fairly the impact and cost to Amanzimtoti residents to
meet the costs of the toll road through the Transkei to Gonubie.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.18.1 above.
E
2.18.8
The meeting was not a formal meeting.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2 and 2.18.1 above.
E
2.18.9
There must be a meeting in our respective areas to address the people properly since
many people are not aware of this. There should be specific meetings with all the affected
people and written feedback to the people.
Refer to the responses to Items 2.13.1.2, 2.17.2.2 and 2.18.1 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
113
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
2.18.10
Government should have made the effort to come to the rural areas and not call us to
Lusikisiki as it is too far for us.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
E
2.18.11
We have a problem with the venue for this open day because Holy Cross is too far. We
are the people who are affected by this road, not the people of Holy Cross.
Refer to the response to Item 2.13.1.2 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
114
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 3:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to specialist studies, with responses from the EIA project team and
SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
3.1
3.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Economic:
Assessment of impact of tolling on rural poor
Impact of additional toll plazas on the impoverished communities of KwaZulu-Natal should be
included.
When
The economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) states that the majority of poor people
make use of bus and taxi transport and special rates for these vehicles may have to be considered
since the introduction of discounts for commuters would reduce the negative impact of tolling on
their total cost of transport.
S
Also, as stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and
the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to deal
with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for
the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance therewith. This
EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs, including those
relating to tolling, are identified and presented. Information on toll sections of the proposed project
and a possible range of toll tariffs at associated mainline toll plazas has thus been provided. The
Draft/Final EIR nevertheless includes an assessment of certain potential tolling-related impacts
(refer to Part D of Volume 1).
3.1.2
No consultation undertaken during previous economic study
No local consulting process was done in the previous study among anyone in the area in
question.
Noted.
S
3.1.3
Issues to be assessed
Work urgently required to quantify actual financial benefits such as development potential near
to new road between Port Edward and Port St Johns, including domestic and international
tourism impacts; value and impact of sand-dune mining along Pondoland coast; and tolling
existing road sections and cross-subsidising costs of construction of new road – this must
include the added transport costs to communities not utilising the new road section such as
those in the urban areas south of Durban. How is future business measured and how is the
impacts on Mount Ayliff measured? Would the economic impact study take into account the
negative impacts on places like Qumbu and Mount Frere?
What other competitive
advantage, besides scenery, does the Eastern Cape have? What type of economic impacts
will be investigated? - will the study look only at the areas where the toll plazas are proposed
or will the study be extended to look at people who travel from the heart of Durban to
Prospecton. Total negative financial impact on the community as individuals and collectively
not documented – has a financial impact study been made of the costs the toll tariffs will have,
especially on those with lower incomes? Cost of proposed freeway uneconomical in relation
to the amount of traffic that would use the road – understand there are bridges which
government is prepared to subsidise – look at the cost of building 94 km to save 75 km if the
only benefit is tourism. There will be huge impact on all residents – a major study should be
undertaken.
Potential economic impacts on affected communities have been considered, as appropriate, in the
economic specialist study undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process
(refer to Volume 4, Appendix 13).
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
115
Also, as stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and
the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to deal
with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for
the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance therewith. This
EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs, including those
relating to tolling, are identified and presented. Information on toll sections of the proposed project
and a possible range of toll tariffs at associated mainline toll plazas has thus been provided. The
Draft/Final EIR nevertheless includes an assessment of certain potential tolling-related impacts
(refer to Part D of Volume 1).
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
3.1.4
3.1.4.1
Comment on Economic Specialist Study
One can only be filled with anger when the distant professor Pienaar who during the first round of
the N2 EIA never even visited our area is once again tasked with compiling the “Specialist SocioEconomic impact study of the Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway” in which the IRR percentages
for our stretch of road gets full treatment, but the impact on the future economics of our area not at
all. Did he listen to our Business and Industrialists when he did at last visit our area. NO.
Response
3.1.4.2
When
Noted.
E
As you are aware we are instructed by Toyota SA, Illovo, Southgate Business Park and its
members, Umbogintwini Industrial Association and its members (the client). Since the beginning of
2003 we have submitted representations on behalf of the clients in respect of the proposal to
upgrade and toll the greater Durban South N2. This is an integral part of the facility proposed to be
developed as the N2 Toll Road from Gonubie to Isipingo. At all times the representations made on
behalf of the clients have related to the potential social and economic impacts that the proposed
upgrade and contingent tolling of the N2 greater Durban South area will have on business,
employees and those dependant on them, the residents and contractors etc. At all times it has been
submitted that the requirement to undertake such an assessment is an integral part of an
environmental impact assessment, being two of the three pillars of sustainability, the determination
of which is the main objective of an EIA and one which cannot be ‘ cut out ‘ of the process. It is
apparent that the terms of reference given to the lead and specialist consultants in this and the
previous assessment has been to exclude any assessment of the social and economic impacts that
the proposal will have on persons in the greater South Durban area. Despite what was stated in the
scoping report, and in the accepted plan of study for the EIA, and in terms of personal
communication with the lead consultants and specialists, a comprehensive socio-economic
assessment does not appear in the draft EIR. Appendix 13 is not an economic assessment, but a
Financial Analysis and a Regional Developmental Financial Evaluation based on desk top models
which do not constitute such an assessment. This was confirmed by Professor Bester at the Open
Day meeting held at Amanzimtoti on the 18th November 2008. Whilst the social impact assessment
(Appendix 5) contains a degree more detail, it is deficient in its analysis of the area in question.
As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project team
that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the
jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to deal with
the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for the
declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance therewith. This
EIA has, nevertheless, ensured that all issues and concerns raised by I&APs, including those
relating to tolling, are identified and presented. Information on toll sections of the proposed project
and a possible range of toll tariffs at associated mainline toll plazas has thus been provided. The
Draft/Final EIR nevertheless includes an assessment of certain potential tolling-related impacts
(refer to Part D of Volume 1).
E
3.1.4.3
The focus of the Terms of Reference (ToR) is on macro-economic characteristics. This focus fails to
take into account the micro impacts which are of concern to the business sector and local
communities, and which has been identified in the social impact assessment as a significant
obstacle requiring specific attention from an economist, and traffic expert.
Refer to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.4
It has been confirmed by specialists that the impact of tolls were not included in the ToR. This is an
area that is crucial to the analysis of the economic and financial feasibility of the proposed highway,
and this is a critical and fatal flaw of the current EIR.
Refer to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.5
Item (b) in the TOR referring to economic impacts on business is not adequately treated in the
report, if at all. Alleged benefits to the business sector are summarised in Section 2.3.1 and impacts in
Section 2.3.4, but there is no detailed analysis or any indication of any significant interviews with the
business sector, or how these benefits have been arrived at. It appears that a single businessman
was interviewed from the South Durban Basin, who is a representative of one of the client members
who holds the concerns summarised herein. There is no micro analysis of how the South Durban
Industrial Cluster (one of the largest industrial clusters in the country) will be affected by the road,
and specifically how the tolls will affect business in the area.
The economic specialist has indicated that the economic specialist report indeed provides names
of persons with whom discussions/interviews were held and that a study of this nature primarily
makes use of documented/recorded information.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
116
Refer further to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
3.1.4.6
The report largely treats the route as a whole. This macro approach fails to capture the complexity of
a long route which traverses areas with many different economic characteristics – a city, commercial
agriculture, subsistence agriculture, country towns, holiday resorts – before reaching the boundary
of the Ethekwini Municipality. In Ethekwini it passes through part of the second largest metropolitan
and industrial area in the country, and it also affects the largest general cargo port in the southern
hemisphere. None of these varied characteristics are dealt with in the analysis, and this is clearly not
sufficient for an Environmental Impact Report. If the proposed tolling of this area is not sustainable, it
is submitted that the sustainability of the whole facility is in doubt. Because of these varied
characteristics, the global approach to the proposed toll highway should be supplemented by an
analysis of discrete economic or geographic sections, one of which should be the stretch between
Isipingo and Winkelspruit.
Noted. According to the economic specialist the route was segmented for analysis purposes
where appropriate.
E
3.1.4.7
Cost-benefit analysis results for this stretch are given in Table 10 (p.1-18), but this is not sufficient
as the supporting text lacks the detail necessary for an assessment as to whether traffic in the
Isipingo-Winkelspruit section is cross-subsiding the other road sections. The contention that there is
substantial cross-subsidisation has been one of the major criticisms of the proposal to toll, yet it is
not considered in the report. Again a degree of cross- subsidisation, if it is necessary, must be
sustainable and equitable, reasonable and justifiable. This has not been established.
Refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) for supporting
and calculations.
E
3.1.4.8
The report does not tackle the fundamental issue in the South Durban Basin, namely, that commuter
traffic (to work and school), heavy vehicle traffic between the harbour and container depots, and
deliveries to and from major manufacturing plants will be obliged to pay toll fees. The impact of this
on the business sector is not calculated, nor is there any discussion of the effect on the
competitiveness of the port of Durban in relation to other ports where harbour and industrial traffic is
not subjected to toll fees.
Noted. Refer to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.9
Although mention is made of toll fee concessions as a mitigation measure, the effect of concessions
on the financial viability of the project is not shown.
Noted. Refer to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.10
The IRR of 10.4% in itself is not a confident indicator of the sustainability of the entire facility.
Noted.
E
3.1.4.11
Appendix 13 Economic Report states: “Financial mitigation measures. The frequent users in the
KwaZulu-Natal section of the route are mostly concentrated on the freeway sections just south of
Durban. Their benefits will be derived from the addition of two lanes to the existing freeway that will
reduce the congestion on this section of the road. This will reduce the vehicle operating costs and
time costs of users.”
I strongly disagree with this statement. The imposition of a toll road will increase the travel time due
to time spent at the Isipingo Mainline toll plaza and congestion on the R102 Kingsway Road due to
traffic diversion.
According to the traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR), the
proposed mitigation strategy of charging local road users only for the distance of the N2
Prospecton – Winklespruit section actually used (by using electronic toll collection technology)
would reduce potential traffic diversion impacts to low significance.
E
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
117
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
3.1.4.12
Business concerns and industry located in South Gate, Prospecton, and Isipingo will be affected by
the increased transport costs and this would adversely affect the promotion of industrial growth to an
area desperately in need of employment opportunities to alleviate poverty among a large population
of underprivileged people. The report is not able to correctly calculate above.
According to the economic specialist there is no sense in improving a road if it will lead to an
increase in vehicle operating costs (VOC). All the improvements are aimed at reducing the VOC by
either better geometry, more capacity, better riding quality or a shorter distance.
E
3.1.4.13
The economic report in essence is an update of the earlier EIA exercise. It is technical and
consequently difficult to interpret. This makes it challenging for the public to fairly and adequately
comment on the report.
Noted.
E
3.1.4.14
The focus of the Terms of Reference is on macro-economic characteristics. This focus fails to take
into account the micro impacts which are of concern to the business sector and local communities.
Noted. According to the economic specialist the route was segmented for analysis purposes
where appropriate.
E
Refer also to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
3.1.4.15
E
Item (b) in the TOR referring to economic impacts on business is not adequately treated in the
report. Benefits to the business sector are summarised in Section 2.3.1 and impacts in Section
2.3.4, but there is no detailed analysis or any indication of any significant interviews with the
business sector. It appears that only one interview was held with the business sector in the South
Durban Basin. There is no micro analysis of how the South Durban Industrial Cluster (one of the
largest industrial clusters in the country) will be affected by the road, and specifically how the tolls will
affect business in the area.
The economic specialist has indicated that the names of persons with whom discussions/interviews
were held are mentioned in the economic specialist report and that a study of this nature primarily
makes use of documented/recorded information.
3.1.4.16
The report largely treats the route as a whole. This macro-economic approach fails to capture the
complexity of a long route which traverses areas with many different economic characteristics. The
proposed N2 toll road starts in a city (East London), then passes through some commercial
agricultural areas but mainly through subsistence agricultural areas containing a number of small
country towns and one large town (Umtata), then reaches the coast and passes through ribbon-like
resort areas, two large towns (Port Shepstone and Margate), and mainly commercial agricultural
areas before reaching the boundary of the Ethekwini Municipality. In Ethekwini it passes through
part of the second largest metropolitan and industrial area in the country, and it also affects the
largest general cargo port in the southern hemisphere. None of these varied characteristics are dealt
with in the analysis, and this is clearly not sufficient for an Environmental Impact Report. Moreover,
the analysis of the South Durban Basin is aggregated under the Ethekwini Municipality as a whole.
There needs to be a specific analysis of the characteristics of the South Durban Basin as they differ
substantially from other areas in the municipality.
Noted. According to the economic specialist the route was segmented for analysis purposes
where appropriate.
E
3.1.4.17
Because of these varied characteristics, the global approach to the proposed toll highway should be
supplemented by an analysis of discrete economic or geographic sections, one of which should be
the stretch between Isipingo and Winkelspruit. Cost-benefit analysis results for this stretch are given
in Table 10 (p. 1-18), but this is not sufficient. What the report should show for each road section are
the following:
(i) Length of section.
(ii) Capital cost of construction.
Refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) for supporting
data and calculations. A summary of the economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus
the road user costs “after”) along the various road sections of the proposed toll highway is shown in
Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
118
Refer further to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
As stated in the FSR (Section 7.6.10), the perception that the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal would
fund the remainder of the proposed project is incorrect. The toll revenue generated at a specific
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
(iii) Annual maintenance costs.
(iv) Average daily traffic by vehicle category.
(iv) Fees (i.e., tariffs) at toll plaza by vehicle category.
(v) Disaggregated cost savings.
(vi) Revenue collected at toll plazas along the section.
Only if such information is given in a clear and easily interpretable manner will it be possible to
ascertain whether traffic in the Isipingo-Winkelspruit section is cross-subsiding the other road
sections. The contention that there is substantial cross-subsidisation has been one of the major
criticisms of the proposal to toll, yet it is not considered in the report.
toll plaza may be perceived to “subsidise” other sections of a toll road because the relative
quantum of the particular revenue for the specific plaza could be disproportionate to actual “toll
length” of that particular section. This is not the case because the actual capital and operational
expenditure on the toll highway over its lifespan tend to equalise over all its sections, i.e. where
there are higher traffic volumes and theoretically higher revenue, increased capital and operational
expenditure over time would also be experienced. Furthermore, the economic specialist report (i.e.
Part 1) indicates that approximately two-thirds of all the toll revenue would be generated annually
in the Eastern Cape section of the proposed toll highway.
3.1.4.18
The report does not tackle the fundamental issue in the South Durban Basin, namely, that
commuter traffic (to work and school), heavy vehicle traffic between the harbour and container
depots, and deliveries to and from major manufacturing plants will be obliged to pay toll fees. The
impact of this on the business sector is not calculated, nor is there any discussion of the effect on
the competitiveness of the port of Durban in relation to other ports where harbour and industrial
traffic is not subjected to toll fees.
Noted. Refer to response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.19
Although mention is made of toll fee concessions as a mitigation measure, the effect of concessions
on the financial viability of the project is not shown.
Noted.
E
3.1.4.20
The report is not well structured. It is difficult to consolidate the various costs and benefits.
Specifically, it is hard to follow the argument on benefits to road users as these are nowhere shown
together in a clear, consolidated table, thus not facilitating fair evaluation of the report. This is an
important defect and there is a need for a clear, uncomplicated table which contains the various
savings and costs for the various sections. The reader should not have to move between sections in
an attempt to piece together these impacts. Table 9 contains an aggregated cost and benefit figure
for road Sections 29-31 (Winkelspruit-Isipingo). However, there needs to be a breakdown by what
the various costs and benefits are for each discrete section.
Refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) for supporting
data and calculations regarding road user costs along the various road sections of the proposed
toll highway. A summary of the economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus the road
user costs “after”) along the various road sections of the proposed toll highway is shown in
Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
E
3.1.4.21
It is unclear why, under the tolled scenario, there will be more traffic on the roads than under the
untolled scenario.
It is not clear which particular case is being referred to here. The traffic specialist has indicated
that, in a general sense, provided that no additional capacity is added, there should not be more
traffic in a tolled scenario than in an untolled scenario. If a new tolled facility, however, includes a
section that offers a shorter route than existed before (for example the “greenfields” section of the
Wild Coast), new traffic that did not use adjacent route sections (such as the N2 between
Prospecton and Mthamvuna) before could be attracted to these adjacent sections as well.
E
3.1.4.22
The vehicle composition in Table 4 appears incorrect. The South Durban Basin is the industrial hub of
KwaZulu-Natal, but has the lowest proportion of heavy vehicles over the entire stretch of the analysed
road.
Please be advised that the figures given in Table 4 are indeed correct. According to the traffic
specialist, the reason why the South Durban Basin area has the lowest proportion of heavy
vehicles is simply that there are more than 50 000 vehicles per day (at the planned Isipingo plaza,
for example) but that significantly more of these are light vehicles than on the other proposed toll
highway sections. This does, however, not mean that the volume of heavy vehicles south of
Durban is lower than on the other sections of the proposed toll highway. The other sections of the
proposed toll highway have significantly lower numbers of light vehicles and, therefore, their
proportions of heavy vehicle are higher.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
119
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
3.1.4.23
Table 6 applies a generic allocation of work and non-work trips to all areas along the road. This
seems a fairly heroic assumption. The South Durban Basin is a significant employer in the local
economy. In non-holiday periods one would expect to find a relatively high proportion of work-related
trips.
According to the economic specialist, this would have increased the benefits to these road users
since work trips are priced higher than other trips.
E
3.1.4.24
In Section 1.5.4, it is stated that there is no account of the income distribution in the report. This is a
significant deficiency in the report. The South Durban Basin is characterised by lower incomes
relative to the rest of the municipality, and this is a crucial factor when considering the impacts that
tolls will have on the community. Additionally, the South Durban Basin is a major industrial region,
and the impact of increased costs will affect the competitiveness of the region and may
consequently affect employment which will further affect the local community.
Noted. Refer further to the response to Item 3.1.4.2 above.
E
3.1.4.25
In the evaluation of the VOCs, it is stated that, on all road sections other than 7, 10 and 14, VOCs
are a function of the hilliness of the road. However, for road sections 29-31 in the appendices, there
is no change in hilliness after upgrading. How then is it possible to derive any savings in VOCs for
these sections? Another problem is that road sections 29-31 are classified as rural whereas, in fact,
they are highly urban.
According to the economic specialist, this is the base VOC which is then adjusted for the traffic
volume.
E
3.1.4.26
In Section 1.9.2, there is an equation with no explanation as to what the variables are or where the
equation and its constants come from. How is one meant to be able to evaluate the robustness?
There should be some comment on whether this is a standard equation for the adjustment of ride
quality of the pavement, or if it is simply an equation derived by the consultant.
The economic specialist has indicated that the relevant equation was not derived by the consultant,
but is the result of research by the CSIR and proposed for use by SANRAL.
E
3.1.4.27
In Section 1.10, there is an analysis of rural road speeds. Road sections 29-31 are included in this,
but should not be classed as rural. It is odd that the consultant defines the South Durban region as
rural. Also in this equation, the speeds are partly a function of the bendiness and hilliness of the road.
The question once more arises as to how there can be much increase in speed if these two
variables do not change after upgrading. The only value that will change is the width of the road.
As in Item 3.1.4.25 above, “urban” traffic, as far as VOC is concerned, is defined by interrupted
traffic operations. The effect of the traffic volumes (congestion) should also be considered – refer to
Section 1.11.3 of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13).
E
3.1.4.28
In Section 1.11, the consultant uses 2002 data to estimate willingness to pay. One would question
the validity of these figures as much has changed in the last six years. It may not be enough to simply
inflate these figures by inflation.
Noted.
E
3.1.4.29
The inflation figures used in Section 1.11.2 do not reflect the official CPIX values (Statistics South
Africa) for the period. The actual CPIX over the period July 2006-July 2007 was 5.88% whereas the
report makes use of a 7.93% inflation rate.
According to the economic specialist, different rates of inflation were applied in different situations
as the circumstances dictated, e.g. the transport index, PPI and CPIX. These were also used for
different periods, depending on the date of available information. The origin of the inflation
information in all cases was StatsSA.
E
3.1.4.30
Section 1.11.3 calculates a traffic congestion adjustment figure based on AADT. However, there is a
large variance in the daily vehicle traffic along the length of the route. Specifically, there is a far
greater AADT for road sections 29-31 than for the rest of the route. Sector-specific adjustment
figures should be calculated. Also, how was parameter 'a' derived? The values are given, but there is
no discussion on their origin.
The economic specialist has indicated that it is discussed in the reference document (Ref 10 in the
economic specialist report).
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
120
When
Furthermore, the economic specialist has indicated that “urban” in this context means roads with
stop and signal control. Freeways are free-flowing, whether in rural or urban areas – it is only the
traffic volumes that would differ.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
3.1.4.31
In the calculation of accident costs (Section 1.12), the cost is a function of the bendiness and the PSI.
As the bendiness does not change for sections 29-31 and the PSI is mainly a function of the
roughness of the road, it is questionable how any accident savings are realised for this section of the
road.
3.2
3.2.1
•
Aquatic Ecosystems:
Impacts on estuaries
Special attention should be give to impacts on estuaries because they are currently in their
most critical state.
3.2.1.1
The alignment of any major highway involving bridges over deep gorges is best located as far
inland as possible to limit estuarine impacts. I note that SANRAL has flagged routes further
inland as preferrable, presumably for limiting the potential of damage to the environment.
3.2.2
3.3.2.1
Comment on Aquatic Ecosystems Specialist Study
Although the draft impact reports are very comprehensive, it was noted that the following aspects
were not emphasised sufficiently:
• Impeding nature of new roads towards storm water flow - road structures have a tendency to
impede surface run off, hence creating artificial wetlands or flooding situations. Lining of road
foundation with semi permeable material to encourage lateral movement of surface runoff will help
reduce concentrated flow if coupled with culverts at strategic points.
• Insufficient information on Wetlands is available. Each wetland affected needs to be classified
into types and relative sensitivity and its role and function in the catchment identified. Attached
please find copy of SS21(c)&(i) Supplementary information form, which will aid in consolidating this
information.
• Taking water or abstracting from a water resource): How much water would be used for each
phase of road construction and which water resource would water be taken from, bearing in mind
that some catchments are regarded as water stressed.
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
Impact on Wetlands
As a representative of the Cape Wetlands Trust I am particularly concerned about this proposal to
put a tolled highway through the "Greenfields" section of the 'Pondoland Centre of Plant Endemism'.
There will be very significant damage particularly to wetland systems both via the primary
engineering structures and also from the secondary effects following from the building of the road.
3.3
3.3.1
•
Soils, land use and agriculture:
Pondoland soils
The statement “…poor soils for agriculture… indicates that no in-depth study was made –
Pondoland, in fact, has rich agricultural soils but the problem is not so much the soils but the
fact that it is communally owned. The soil of the former Transkei in many places is ideal for
such produce as bananas, pawpaw, avocados and pineapples among others.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
121
Response
When
The economic specialist has indicated that, with the improvement of this section, the roughness
(PSI) would be improved.
E
Noted. Refer to Sections 8.1.3, 9.2 and 9.3 of the DSR/FSR and the aquatic ecosystems specialist
report (Volume 2, Appendix 3 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
Noted.
E
Noted. It should be noted that the various rivers and watercourses were listed in the specialist
report, while detail on the floodlines, etc are contained in the engineering designs as this impacts
on bridge selection, etc. Mitigation measures and comments regarding stormwater control are
included in the specialist report while cognisance was also taken of SANRAL’s drainage manual
which comprehensively deals with stormwater management as this impacts road safety on the road
surfaces as well as alongside roads.
E
The aquatic ecosystems specialist has indicated that, where time and aerial imagery have allowed,
wetlands were delineated according to DWAF documentation.
All relevant requirements of the National Water Act, 1998 will be included in the Draft EMP.
Relevant water use licensing requirements would be undertaken during the detailed design phase
of the proposed project, if approved.
Noted. Potential impacts of the proposed toll highway and the identified feasible alternatives on
wetlands are addressed in detail in the aquatic ecosystems specialist report (Volume 2, Appendix
3) and the associated Addendum report (in Volume 5).
E
The relevant DSR statement intended to refer to soils in the affected areas along the proposed
greenfields route of the proposed project. The FSR has been amended accordingly. A detailed
investigation and assessment of the potential impacts on soils, land use and agriculture was
undertaken as part of the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 2,
Appendix 4 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
3.4
3.4.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Air pollution:
Toll road will cause air pollution
The toll road will further increase air emissions in a heavily polluted area (South Durban).
Vehicles slowing down and stopping at toll plazas will cause additional pollution to the already
exceptionally high levels of pollution in the South Durban Basin, which is unacceptable.
Additional noise and air pollution will occur in residential areas should heavy vehicles and
other vehicles use this route. Industrial workers from the area close to the proposed Isipingo
tollgate, public schools and old age homes in the nearby neighbourhood of Athlone can ill
afford to the subjected to additional pollution – an air pollution assessment is required to
determine what effect the potential additional pollution from heavy traffic at a tollgate would
have, based on case studies done at other similar tollgates, in the South Durban Basin. What
mitigation measures could possibly be put in place for the increase in noise and air pollution
from this road (in eThekwini). The project will create increased levels of air pollution. Air
pollution will affect livestock. People will be affected by increased air pollution. Greenhouse
effect.
When
These issues and concerns were included in the Terms of Reference of the air quality specialist
study undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Sections 8.2.5,
9.2 and 9.3.9 of the DSR/FSR). The specialist study (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 9 of the
Draft/Final EIR) includes, amongst others, identification of effective and practicable mitigation
measures.
S
3.4.2
Air pollution on alternative routes
As a resident of Kingsway, will be severely affected by the obnoxious smells and the carbon
monoxide – am an asthmatic. Pollution (exhaust and noise) from all the vehicles will increase
illnesses such as lung diseases and allergies, etc. in the Kingsway Road area. Many are from
the mines and their lungs are impaired – will hospital bills be paid? Pollution and noise in
Kingsway will be unbearable. Will cause a major health and psychological problem for
residents, not to mention extra financial burden. Additional fumes generated by stop-start
traffic will affect the hospital negatively on both its long road boundaries as it is situated
between the N2 and Kingsway.
These issues and concerns were included in the Terms of Reference of the air quality specialist
study undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Sections 8.2.5,
9.2 and 9.3.9 of the DSR/FSR). The air quality specialist report is presented in Volume 4,
Appendix 9 of the Draft/Final EIR.
S
3.4.3
Air pollution study required
It is recommended that the air quality study determines the current status of air quality in an
area and superimposes the predicted levels of the proposed toll highway, especially in the
Isipingo area, which is a hot spot. Monitoring should include pollutants such as SO2, VOCs,
benzene and PM10. The study should be conducted in consultation with eThekwini’s Pollution
Control and Risk Management section. Has a road-side impact study been done to monitor
levels of dust, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, and benzene, xylene and toluene – will a before
and after study be conducted?
The Terms of Reference for the air quality specialist study undertaken during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process is provided in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.9 of the DSR/FSR. The
air quality specialist report is presented in Volume 4, Appendix 9 of the Draft/Final EIR.
Consultation with relevant authorities such as the eThekwini Pollution Control and Risk
Management section was undertaken, as appropriate.
S
Comment on the Air Quality Specialist Study
Air quality is problematic to monitor, and not within the capacity of most local authorities, such as the
eThekwini municipality. It remains therefore an unresolved factor.
The air quality specialist has indicated that this statement is not totally true – most local authorities
do not have the capacity to do air quality monitoring but the eThekwini municipality has many years
of experience in this field. The existing monitoring network, however, does not include a monitor in
the Prospecton/Isipingo area.
E
3.4.4.1
One area that should be targeted for air quality monitoring is the Isipingo/Prospecton area, where
the highest air quality impacts are expected. The location of monitoring sites should be done in
collaboration with the eThekwini municipality since they already operate a wide network of
monitoring stations in the SDIB.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
122
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
3.4.4.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Firstly note the down-playing (Low – Medium) the Executive Summary gives the very serious effect
of Air Pollution all along Kingsway near our Hospitals, Churches, Schools, Retirement Complexes,
Businesses, Flats and Homes that fringe this road that is going to be used not only by diverting
motorists in motor cars but heavy trucks that spew out 100 times more pollution than any of cars.
(Specialist Report. N Bews & Associates. Vol 3 pg 136 para 3.) One can’t but help notice that this
problem is dumped onto out eThekwini Health Department to monitor and who most likely will be
totally disregarded by SANRAL and their Concessionaire when it comes to control.
Response
The air quality specialist and EIA team reject any allegation of “down-playing” of potential impacts.
Based on traffic count data, modelled ambient concentrations during peak hour traffic for the
current situation (“do-nothing” scenario) already exceed ambient air quality standards for NO2
along Kingsway. This impact would progressively worsen in the future even without the proposed
N2 toll highway.
When
E
Potential impacts were assessed according to standard criteria and rating scales, as set out in
Section 9.4 of the DSR/FSR and Section 2.2.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR (and refer to
Appendix 6, Table 1: Impact assessment criteria and rating scales of the air quality specialist
report) while the significance of potential impacts was determined according to a pre-defined
convention (refer to Table 9.2 of the DSR/FSR and Table 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as
well as Appendix 6, Table 2: Convention for assigning significance ratings of the air quality
specialist report).
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented, and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.4.4.3
No consideration has been given to the increase in air pollution resulting from standing running
vehicles at the proposed toll sites in an already saturated environment.
According to the air quality specialist, emission rates for the vehicles approaching and leaving the
toll plaza were calculated at a number of intervals during deceleration and acceleration and are
specific to the speed limits for that section of the highway.
E
For example, for the proposed toll plaza at Isipingo, where the speed limit is 120 km/hr, light motor
vehicles travel at 120 km/hr on approach to the toll plaza, decelerating to 100 km/hr at 750 m from
the toll plaza, further decelerating to 80 km/hr at 500 m from the toll plaza, then 60 km/hr at 250 m
from the toll plaza, further decelerating to 10 km/hr at 50 m from the toll plaza, and finally moving at
1-5 km/hr while passing through the toll plaza and then accelerating away in a similar profile to the
approach. The emission rates for trucks are based on assumptions where the approach speed is
80 km/hr at 500 m from the toll plaza, decelerating to 60 km/hr at 250 m from the toll plaza, further
decelerating to 10 km/hr at 50 m from the toll plaza and idling at 1-5 km/hr through the toll plaza.
Isipingo is regarded as a very sensitive area in terms of air quality due to its close proximity of
industries in the SDIB and the high volumes of traffic on a daily basis. Hence, a case study for
Isipingo is presented where selected VOCs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, 1,3
butadiene), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and diesel particulates are modelled. The modelled values are
based on emission factors for congested traffic and worst-case meteorology. Emission factors from
the FRIDGE study is used for SO2.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
123
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.3.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Cultural and Historical Heritage:
Archaeology
A recent discovery was made of 300,000 year old stone artefacts from the Sangoan era within
a 3 km stretch of coast within the Xolobeni area – it was confirmed that the site was “an
extensive and important cultural landscape of great antiquity”, and that there was every
possibility that the fossilised remains of the hominids that crafted and used the tools would be
discovered. Some sections of the proposed greenfields road will pass near a little-known
series of stone age caves – these are filled with Stone Age implements and the users of the
proposed N2 can cause untold damage to the caves on the banks of the Mnyameni River near
the big falls where the cement low water bridge has been built. Sangoan archaeological sites
of significance have not been mentioned or alluded to in the report. SAHRA Archaeology,
Palaeontology and Meteorite Unit needs confirmation whether the previous palaeontological
study included the entire route of the road. The preliminary desktop archaeological
assessment recommended that a reconnaissance visit be undertaken before the road is
developed - this visit must take the form of a full field Phase 1 Archaeological Impact
Assessment – in terms of archaeology, the area is potentially very sensitive and there may be
Stone Age or Iron Age sites en route that might need to be mitigated (Phase 2 - excavated for
research samples and dating) before they are destroyed. The Heritage Impact Assessment
must include not only the archaeological and palaeontological components, but also the
assessment of any other applicable heritage components that may be impacted, such as built
structures over 60 years old, sites of cultural significance associated with oral histories, burial
grounds and graves, graves of victims of conflict and cultural landscapes or viewscapes;
there would need to be special emphasis on ensuring that Iron Age sites were located and
(unless they were extremely important) mitigated before being destroyed.
Heritage study
Amafa Akwazulu Natali is responsible for the area from Port Edward to Amanzimtoti whilst the
National Heritage Resources Agency is responsible for the remaining portion. A heritage
consultant should undertake a survey of the heritage study as soon as possible – it is
necessary to identify sensitive sites for further detailed investigation and to put a management
plan in place for the areas of concern. Should it become clear that there are heritage
sensitive sites, it will be a requirement that an appropriate practitioner is appointed to monitor
these sites – the mitigation of impacts is important. Impact on historical heritage and sites of
cultural, spiritual and religious importance must be assessed. What would happen to any
affected graves? What do the kings say about the graves that would be affected? Who
would be responsible for graves if they had to be removed? What would happen if bones of
the dead were found during construction? – would the family get any compensation?
Comment on the Cultural and Historical Heritage Specialist Study
The draft EIAR fails to deal with the issue of graves and sacred sites in these communities. It only
deals with the royal family graves. This is not acceptable to the Amadiba Tribal Authority as a lot of
their ancestral graves occupy the vast area of land where the toll road development is proposed.
The community wants a clear map indicating all of their grave sites and sacred sites and how these
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
124
When
The specialist cultural and historical heritage study was undertaken with due consideration of the
legislative heritage requirements and took due cognisance of all potential indirect/secondary and
cumulative impacts of the proposed project on heritage resources. The specialist heritage report
is presented in Volume 3, Appendix 7.
S
The specialist cultural and historical heritage study was undertaken with due consideration of the
legislative heritage requirements. The specialist study included, amongst others, identification of
effective and practicable mitigation measures. The specialist heritage report is presented in
Volume 3, Appendix 7.
S
This is incorrect. The social and heritage specialist studies and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR
provide an adequate assessment of potential impacts on graves and burial grounds. Also, the
Draft/Final EIR recommends that a further pre-construction heritage survey be undertaken on the
final route. Furthermore, heritage legislation requires that further public consultation be undertaken
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
will be affected by the proposed development.
as part of the permit application process for the identification, exhumation and relocation of any
affected graves. This would be undertaken as part of detailed design and the land acquisition
process, if the proposed project were authorised. Relevant requirements pertaining to graves and
burial grounds will be stipulated in the Draft EMP to be submitted to the competent environmental
authority for approval.
In view of the eThembeni Cultural Heritage Specialists survey findings, in terms of Section 26 of the
Amafa KwaZulu Natal Heritage Act No 10 of 1997 we have no objection to the proposed
development since there are no heritage impacts anticipated in the KwaZulu Natal Region, the
Amafa area of jurisdiction. You are however required to adhere to the below-mentioned
recommendations as presence of sub - surface heritage resources cannot be ruled out in your area
of operation:
Conditions:
1. Amafa should be contacted if any heritage objects are identified during earthmoving activities
and all development should cease until further notice especially in the Port Edward area besides
other areas of operation.
2. No structures older than sixty years or parts thereof are allowed to be demolished, altered or
extended without a permit from Amafa.
3. No activities are allowed within 50m of a site which contains rock art.
4. Amafa should be contacted if any graves are identified during construction and the following
procedure is to be followed:
• stop construction
• report finding to local police station
• report to Amafa to investigate.
Heritage Resources are protected in terms of the KwaZuIu-Natal Heritage Act (No. 10 of 1997).
•
Tourism:
Money spent on tourism development should have been spent on infrastructure
Money spent on the development of tourism on the Wild Coast would be better spent on the
development of local infrastructure such as better local roads and water supplies.
Noted. These conditions will be included in the Draft EMP for the proposed project, as appropriate.
E
Noted. Refer to relevant response provided in Table 1, page 8 above.
S
3.6.2
Impact on the sense of place/wilderness of the Wild Coast
Pristine places like the Pondoland Wild Coast where the wild and camping can be enjoyed,
where there is no running water or electricity will be lost and it will be developed and/or priced
out of range. Unspoilt secluded beauty of the Wild Coast is its main attraction. No measure
of mitigation will reduce the bio-physical and aesthetic impacts on one of the country’s
potentially most valuable natural assets. The Wild Coast will be spoiled for generations to
come – the belief that a toll road will attract tourists because it is a shorter distance is surely
nonsense – who would want to go to the Wild Coast to see a freeway that can be seen in any
city? The “sense-of-place” of the wilderness gorges of the Mzamba, Mnyameni, Mthentu, Kwa
Dlambu and Msikaba rivers has been totally ignored.
Noted. A visual specialist study was undertaken to investigate and assess potential impacts of the
proposed project on aesthetics and sense of place of the affected landscape, as appropriate (refer
to Sections 9.2 and 9.3.10 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 4, Appendix 10 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
E
3.6.3
Impact of tolls on tourism
Has any survey been done to gauge the attitudes of tourists to toll fees?; already the high cost
of travelling from the interior to the coast affects the amount of money holidaymakers can
afford to spend.
These issues and concerns were considered in the tourism specialist study undertaken during the
Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
S
3.5.3.2
3.6
3.6.1
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
125
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
3.6.4
Wild Coast Tourism Master Plan
A tourism initiative for the Wild Coast is currently being undertaken; it would be reasonable to
assume that such a study should be completed before constructing an expensive toll road
prior to understanding the tourism master plan for the area.
The tourism and planning/development specialist studies considered the proposed project in
relation to all relevant tourism initiatives for the study area (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6 and
Volume 4, Appendix 12, respectively).
S
3.6.5
Impact on tourism to the Wild Coast
International touring agencies recognise that global tourism has moved into a new phase, i.e.
the wilderness experience (Nature) and the authentic experience (Culture) – both can be
developed sensitively with the right scale of interventions in the existing Wild Coast context –
to demean these qualities irreversibly through a major and avoidable infrastructural change
would ignore the intergenerational right to such assets. Impact of the road on the eco-tourism
potential is not assessed. Road needs to be constructed for eco-tourism to develop. What
could be done to mitigate negative impacts? Focus of Wild Coast LED initiative would be on
facilitating commercial tourism and hotel development along the Wild Coast. Same problems
in terms of uncontrolled development as on the KN South Coast would result – tourists did not
like to go to highly developed areas – the area should be developed in a different way
because tourists liked wilderness areas. Why is tourism considered in the greenfields section
and not in the Willowvale area? The toll road does not make financial sense – it will not
upgrade the communities – it will only bypass them and will devastate one of the most pristine
and beautiful areas I our country [motivation provided]. Eco-tourism should be encouraged to
these as yet unspoilt areas of South Africa. A national park lends itself to considerable tourist
activities as a source of development.
These issues and concerns were considered in the tourism specialist study undertaken during the
Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
S
3.6.5.1
There are contradictory assertions in claims that the road is necessary to improve access to the
region in order to promote eco-tourism, but then states it is to provide a shorter route between
provinces. If the road endangers the ecological richness on which eco-tourism is to be founded (the
EIR gives an indication of high environmental impacts) then is this not counteractive to the
objectives of the proposal i.e. to promote eco-tourism development.
The motivation for the proposed project is set out in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
According to the tourism specialist, the tourism industry in the Wild Coast area would not develop
in a similar manner as the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast. The tourism specialist report includes
consideration of the potential impacts of increased access to environmentally sensitive areas on
the sustainability of eco-tourism (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
E
3.6.5.2
The proposed highway will improve access to the Wild Coast from both KZN and Eastern Cape,
especially the section between Port Edward and Mthatha, opening up this strategic tourist attraction,
which is positive for tourism. However, the planned highway will affect ecotourism opportunities
offered by the Wild Coast area and affect the scenery which attracts tourists in this area. This will
have a gross negative impact on tourism.
On the other hand the GCP2 (Global Competitiveness Project – Tourism Growth and Development –
UNESCO) report recommends that the Wild Coast be made accessible through building access
roads. This is a matter of national strategic importance.
Noted. According to the tourism specialist, the tourism industry in the Wild Coast area would not
develop in a similar manner as the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast. The tourism specialist report
includes consideration of the potential impacts of increased access to environmentally sensitive
areas on the sustainability of eco-tourism (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
E
3.6.5.3
The planned highway will have more positive impacts on the Eastern Cape side as compared to
KwaZulu Natal side. The tourism industry on the KZN side is more developed and does not entirely
depend on this highway for sustainability.
Agreed. The tourism specialist report indicates that the KZN portion of the proposed toll highway is
already a mature tourist destination and that the potential tourism impacts of the proposed project
in KZN would be neutral (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
126
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Impact on tourism to KZN
Improved access will encourage tour buses to travel the route between KZN and the Eastern
Cape. The number of toll plazas will have a negative impact on the local people and on the
tourists who want to come to KZN [motivation provided]. There is a need for a link between
the KZN South Coast and the Eastern Cape but the fees will simply not stimulate economic
activity in the KZN area and will discourage tourism. From a pure tourist point of view the new
toll road will elevate Margate to being the most beautiful garden route in the world.
These issues and concerns were considered in the tourism specialist study undertaken during the
Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6).
S
E
3.6.6.1
Cost is one of the important factors that tourists consider if they choose to visit a particular
destination. Adding a new toll road will somehow add costs to visitors and this will discourage
potential visitors to the South Coast.
According to the tourism specialist, the KZN South Coast is a well-established tourism destination.
The tourism specialist study found that, as toll fees are seen as part of the holiday cost for tourists,
it would not discourage potential visitors to the destination.
E
3.6.6.2
The additional two lanes south of Durban will improve flow of traffic and reduce congestion on the
road which is positive for tourism.
Noted.
E
3.6.7
3.6.7.1
Comment on Tourism Specialist Study
Tourism (Refer 6.6.8 c) "Access to coastal destinations could be improved through the improvement
of secondary routes." Why has this not been done before?
According to the tourism specialist, tourism in the Wild Coast area has developed slowly as the
main road from which the secondary roads would be developed has not been adequate.
E
3.6.7.2
The negative impacts of the proposed N2 Wild Coast highway outweigh the positive impacts on
tourism. It is therefore the recommendation of this Department of Arts Culture and Tourism and
Tourism KwaZulu Natal that this development should not continue.
The tourism specialist study has found that the potential positive impact on the tourism industry in
the Eastern Cape would outweigh the potential negative impact and that the potential impact on
tourism in the KZN portion would be neutral.
E
3.6.7.3
USCATA strongly believes that all claims by Tourist Associations in KZN to the effect that the
proposed toll road will be a boost to the tourism industry, is self centred and greedy as the negative
effects of the proposed toll road will overtake any improved travelling by road to the Wild Coast.
As the development of tourism on the Wild Coast actually requires the area to remain in its natural
state and not development of modern facilities that are part and parcel of the developed
environment as we see it in the modern rat race of easy living conditions.
It could be a far superior operation if Tourists could be flown to a small airfield at Lusikisiki from
where local and indigenous tourist service groups could operate if the area has been provided with
good secondary roads to each of the special places along the Wild Coast in that region. Local tourist
groups could “ taxi” tourists to and from those camps and also arrange for not only long stay
accommodation but also provide for hiker groups who could hike to any of the destinations. That
system of tourism development will be very attractive to tourists and will benefit the Eastern Cape
and help to enhance the area as an eco- tourist destination.
According to the tourism specialist, the potential positive impact on the tourism industry in the
Eastern Cape would outweigh the potential negative impact. It is believed that to fly tourists into
the area, particularly the hiker groups mentioned, would be prohibitively expensive and may only
occur on a very limited, small scale. The tourism specialist report includes consideration of the
potential impacts of increased access to environmentally sensitive areas on the sustainability of
eco-tourism (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6). The report recommends that secondary roads be
developed from the proposed toll highway to the “special places along the Wild Coast in that
region”. Also, it is considered that the tourism industry in the Wild Coast area would not develop in
a similar manner as the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast.
E
3.6.7.4
Improved access to the Wild Coast would certainly facilitate the development of tourism, however, The tourism specialist report has indicated that tourism relevant to the study area has been taken
the report does not seem to have investigated the restrictions on that potential. The current restriction into account and that the study was not based on a “first world/western” model of tourism. Refer
is primarily the poor quality of the secondary road system. The attraction of the Wild Coast is that it further to relevant responses above.
remains undeveloped, almost uniquely so in South Africa. Although it can certainly accommodate
more visitors than at present, it requires very careful planning in order to preserve its attractiveness,
as well as its heritage value. Although the study implies potential for a large increase in tourism its
E
3.6.6
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
127
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
assessment appears to be based on a "first world / western" model of tourism inappropriate for this
area. It was also noted that table 3.2 implies that the proposal will have a negative impact on tourism
in Natal. The economic benefits therefore appear to be greatly overstated.
3.7
3.7.1
•
Traffic impact study:
Inadequacy of previous traffic study
Traffic studies undertaken by Stewart Scott International whose chairman is also a major
shareholder in Bohlweki Environmental cannot be accepted with any credibility. SANRAL in
the present illegitimate DSR gloat over the fact that as Kingsway is already reaching maximum
traffic density during peak hours, motorists would benefit by using the toll road as a quicker
route - heavy freight vehicle operators will, if a tollgate was placed at Isipingo, be quick to use
this route in preference to paying exorbitant and immoral toll fees; residents living next to or
near Kingsway can expect the road to become a busy thoroughfare at all times of the day with
the consequent noise and exhaust pollution and safety hazards.
Noted. A traffic specialist study was undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA
process to investigate and assess these and other relevant concerns. Findings of the traffic
specialist study informed the air quality and noise specialist studies, as appropriate.
S
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.2
Current and predicted traffic growth
The current and predicted future traffic volumes is really inept; in 30 years’ time, where will we
be with the availability of oil, the price of oil and the need for mass public transport? The
decision to use national GDP to decide on the percentage growth in vehicle traffic is unsound
and could be regarded as misleading, as it does not take into account local factors that could
influence traffic flows [calculations provided for projections on the route section Winklespruit to
Isipingo]; how many lanes (each way) will be required to cope with a volume of 135500
vehicles per day between Winklespruit and Isipingo by 2020? Taking into account the
proximity of existing buildings and roads (and railway line?) how many lanes can be added
along the Winklespruit to Isipingo route?; new objective thinking is required when estimating
future trends [NAAMSA retail sale figures of new vehicles over the last few years provided];
please advise volume ADT figures in respect of trucks – was special provision made for the
increase of trucking due to growth of offices and industry in Southgate Industrial Park? What
is a best guess of the impact of the Arbour Town development on the site of the old
Umbogintwini Golf Course [details provided] and the Blue Bay retail centre at Winklespruit on
the vehicle flow from Isipingo to Winklespruit in terms of a big increase in truck deliveries to
the outlets? – the proposed toll plaza is “doomed” to failure within a short period of time - a
“bumper to bumper” chaotic traffic situation will have been created [list of points included];
plans have not been seen setting out clearly the widening of the existing roads; specialist
Traffic Engineers from the eThekwini Council must be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposals. Discussions with I&APs, in particular the representatives from USCATA and
APCA should be held to obtain their input on behalf of their members. Is traffic reduction
being looked at? How can average daily traffic be quoted as 24 200 to 45 800? – an average
is one figure.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
128
Noted. Refer to independent technical review of SANRAL information contained in Appendix 17 of
the FSR.
S
Relevant concerns were addressed in the traffic specialist study (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11 of
the Draft/Final EIR).
Available road planning documents have, as far as possible, been taken into account in the
planning of the proposed project.
Typical layout details of the proposed road upgrades are provided in Appendix 18 of the FSR.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
3.7.3
Traffic diversion on alternative routes
Have there been any studies looking at how much traffic will be diverted onto the new road?
A traffic specialist study was undertaken to investigate and assess these and other relevant
concerns (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11).
S
3.7.4
Issues to be assessed
Has a “time and motion” study been made regarding the extra time (and extra petrol) costs
involved due to the huge volume of traffic that will be using the toll plaza?
A traffic specialist study was undertaken to investigate and assess these and other relevant
concerns (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11).
S
According to the traffic specialist, SANRAL requires Concessionaires to build toll plazas and
requires toll operators to provide a service at toll plazas in order to ensure that the queue length at
a toll plaza would not be more than 6 vehicles per lane, including the vehicle being serviced, for
95% of the time. In the case of the proposed toll highway, the Concessionaire would be required
by SANRAL, in terms of its “Engineering Requirements” for concession contracts, to use Electronic
Toll Collection (ETC), including non-stop dedicated ETC lanes with an hourly vehicle throughput of
700-800 vehicles per hour (compared to 250 vehicles per hour in a manual toll lane), to provide the
required level of service at the Isipingo toll plaza. ETC involves communication between a toll tag
attached to the windscreen of a vehicle and “readers” in a toll lane in order to identify the vehicle
for toll payment purposes. Local and other users with ETC tags would, in most cases, not have to
stop at the toll plazas at all and should, therefore, in most cases, experience very little delay.
E
3.7.5
3.7.5.1
Comment on the Traffic Specialist Study
Appendix 11: Traffic Specialist Study 4.2 states: “Since the Isipingo toll plaza would have to process
significantly more traffic than any existing South African toll plaza, inadequate toll plaza capacity
may lead to significant peak period traffic congestion.” This statement then directly contradicts the
key "benefit" listed for this section of the proposed toll road: Reduced travel time; Alleviation of traffic
congestion.
With the increased use of non-stop ETC it is, therefore, expected that delays at toll plazas would
be reduced significantly.
3.7.5.2
The traffic engineers made the assumption that a certain percentage (74%) of the users of the N2
will use the alternative route (i.e. Kingsway / R102) if a toll road was to be established.
“The traffic diversion analysis without any mitigation measures at the “high” light vehicle tariff level of
R8 at the Isipingo mainline plaza indicated that, as a result of traffic diversion due to the
phenomenon described above, a 74% increase of traffic volumes on the R102 Prospecton – Joyner
Road alternative route is predicted, i.e. an increase in the 30th highest hourly volume of the year
from 1 593 veh/hr in one direction to 2 774 veh/hr (2006 traffic volumes). Such an increased volume
would lead to a significantly worse volume/capacity ratio on the R102 and would, therefore, have a
very negative impact on the level of service and quality of travel on the alternative route.”
They then mentioned that if certain mitigating circumstances are not applied this alternative route
would reach maximum capacity.
These recommendation of alternative measures and reducing the traffic on the alternative route
have the following obvious flaws and the toll road will definitely increase the volume on the
alternative route:
• The alternative of “open tolling” is flawed because to date it has not effectively been
implemented anywhere in the country.
• An assumption that if the mitigation circumstances are applied only 1% of users will use the
alternative route. This cannot be substantiated because of the special circumstance of the use of
the N2 by local residents. The N2 is used as a connection road between schools, work and
residence within a 16km stretch and nowhere in South Africa do you find a similar freeway
section that is used as this section, thus the mathematical model used is totally flawed.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
129
The traffic specialist has indicated that open road tolling is not being proposed and that the addition
of dedicated Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) lanes with booms is what would be provided in terms
of the “Engineering Requirements” of SANRAL. The primary mitigation measure is the charging of
discounted toll tariffs to local users by issuing ETC tags to such users to facilitate their identification
in such dedicated ETC lanes at the Isipingo mainline toll plaza. The application of ETC technology
in this way is extremely common in many countries of the world and it has also been implemented
successfully on the N1/N4 Platinum Toll Road in South Africa. There is nothing exceptional or
experimental about this application.
E
The “1% of users” referred to in Section 5.3.1.1 of the traffic specialist report refers to 1% of “toll
eligible” traffic. “Toll eligible traffic” is defined as “... all traffic with origins and destinations such
that it would be sensible to use the toll road...”. Road users currently preferring to use the R102
are, therefore, not “... toll eligible ...” but those users who currently use the N2 can be regarded as
toll eligible.
Provided that the correct values of time are used in the mathematical model, it has been shown to
provide correct answers in respect of rural as well as urban freeways. Since the model predicts the
behaviour of a group of road users who do not all have the same value of time, it cannot be
expected to provide an absolutely precise answer. The order of magnitude of the answer has,
however, been found to be correct
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
• Reduced toll fees will also not have any impact and the model used for establishing mitigating
circumstances are flawed for the same reason as point 3.
Nowhere in the traffic report was consideration given to the heavy vehicles that might want to use
the alternative route in order to reduce cost. This has been very evident throughout the country at all
toll roads (this problem has conveniently been passed onto the Durban Metro which is funded by the
exact rate payers that would need to pay for the toll road (thus a double tax on the toll road)). At
sections between Joyner road and Winkelspruit the alternative route is a single lane which cannot
accommodate heavy traffic but due to the nature of business along the route heavy vehicles cannot
be prohibited from using the alternative route.
The alternative route between Joyner road and Winklespruit has a number of schools (7) close by
and school children can be seen crossing the road regularly in order to go to and from school.
Children on motorcycles and bicycles also have to use and cross the road regularly to and from
school. The toll road will put children’s lives at risk as no control can be exercised over who will use
the alternative route to avoid the cost of the toll road. No consideration was given to this specific
aspect.
Amanzimtoti/Doonside/Warner Beach is a major tourist attraction visited by families during holidays.
Tourist and children regularly walk to the beach on foot would a have to cross the alternative
extremely busy route regularly to reach the beachfront. The danger of excess vehicle traffic,
pollution etc. can have a serious economic impact on the area. No consideration was given to this
specific aspect either.
International and South African research and empirical experience have shown a clear relationship
between the level of toll fees and the attraction of traffic to a toll road. (refer to Figure 2-1 in the
traffic specialist report). The statement that “... Reduced toll fees will also not have any impact ...”
is, therefore, incorrect. On what is it based?
When
Even though only the total traffic analysis results are provided in the traffic specialist report, the
analysis of traffic in the report was performed for all four toll vehicle classes, including three heavy
vehicle classes. Table 5-1 of the report indicates the toll tariffs used at the various toll plazas for
heavy vehicles. The conclusion in the report regarding the significant reduction of traffic diversion
after the application of Local User Discounts to achieve an equitable tariff per km of the toll roads
used, are therefore also applicable to heavy vehicles, provided that the heavy to light vehicle tariff
ratios in the report are not exceeded.
As far as heavy vehicle owners who are local users are concerned, it should, therefore, be noted
that Local User Discounts also apply to local heavy vehicle owners. Since heavy vehicle
movements are not commuting movements such as in the case of light vehicles, the Alternative 1
(“do minimum” alternative) mitigation measure would not be adequate for heavy vehicles and
Alternative 2 (the “preferred” alternative) mitigation measure would be required for heavy vehicles.
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.5.3
Comments mainly focused on table 5-2 vide Executive Summary : page 23 of the recent EIR:
It is noted that the 2005 DTV figures are referred to as Actual Year 2005. These are presumably the
"start-up" figures actually recorder. We would like to have absolute confidence in the figures quoted
in table 5-2. It is therefore imperative that we receive a copy of the Actual Year 2005 report. We
expect this report will clearly set out the modus operandi; dates; times; auditing procedures; collation
principles followed; the comments of the controller; auditor’s report certifying that laid down
procedures had been followed. Please send copy of the report by Courier Service to: EJ Fourie; 3
Hervonne Heights, 96 Lewis Drive, Amanzimtoti, 4126.
In accumulating the basic DTV / ADT we expect the vital aspect of the "make-up" of the traffic flow
was clearly recorded so that the compiler could make his assessment of the traffic volumes and the
impact the various vehicles will have on the operation of the Toll-gate facilities. You probably also
know that the "Greater Amanzimtoti" is having a big increase in the volume of the full range of
vehicles using the existing road structures. A quite noticeable increase is in TRAILER TRUCKS
("horse & trailer"); many carrying containers to Southgate Industrial/Business Park and to the two
large shopping centres: Arbour Crossing (completed Nov 2008) and Galleria - expected completion
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
130
The traffic specialist has indicated that SANRAL’s Comprehensive Traffic Observation (CTO)
Yearbook for 2007 and for previous years can be purchased at their head office in Pretoria (Tel
012 426 6000).
The analysis was performed in 2007 at a time when the 2006 Yearbook had already been
published. The rationale for using the 2005 Yearbook, as provided in Section 5.1.1.1 of the traffic
specialist report (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11) was that the 2006 Yearbook did not provide the
30th highest hourly traffic volumes at the various toll plaza locations. The 2006 actual average daily
traffic volumes are, therefore, actually measured and not estimated traffic volumes. The 2006 30th
highest hourly volumes were estimated using the 2005 ratios, since this information for 2006 users
was not available.
It should be noted that, if the available traffic figures for South African national roads are
considered, the traffic volume increases are significantly lower than the NAAMSA figures supplied.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
3.7.5.4
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
later in 2009. These two shopping centres draw customers from Amanzimtoti area and down the
South Coast, also Umlazi, Isipingo, Chatsworth, Prospecton, Bluff, Wentworth, etc. We expect your
traffic volume experts will now be given up to date 2006, 2007, 2008 DTVs so that they can give their
report on more current traffic volumes and not have to do a professional report based on 2005 DTA
figures and to arrive at 2006 the 2005 DTA is increased by 3.25 %.
NAAMSA provided us with the following figures of NEW vehicle sales for each calendar year (figures
are for all vehicles including trucks):
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
368470
449594 564974 646566 612708
> 22%
>25%
>14%
<1%
Three basic criteria: huge volumes of new vehicles are coming on our roads; the % increases for a
number of years have been large, as we know sales of new vehicles have dropped, but we also
know (expect) volumes will increase when economy starts picking up, very much depends on the
economic growth taking place in each geographic area.
In Table 5-2 it is estimated that ADTV on N2 increased by 3.25% (2006 over 2005); NAAMSA figures
show an increase of new vehicle sales of >14%. Please ask your TVE to advise the basis for using a
3.25% increase.
In planning/designing a Toll Plaza for traffic vehicles it is vital to have the data (of traffic volumes)
that reflects the true volumes at specific periods of time frames and that all projections of traffic
volumes are assessed / evaluated on sound assumptions. To increase 2005 volumes by only 3.25%
needs further clarification. Why only use 2005 and 2006 (estimated)?
Traffic flows; please refer to table 2 / page 23 of April 2006 Draft Scoping Report: Current and
predicted future flows on the N2 and R61; Executive Summary. This table includes projections to
2020 and it is stated that future traffic growth is based on an average annual growth rate of 3.5% for
a 20-year design period. It is noted that the 3.5% is not used as a compound rate. The figures quoted
reflect a compound rate of 2.66% p.a. If the compiler had used 3.5% p.a. (compound) then the 45800
would increase to 76730 (not 68000). Please ask your TVE (traffic vehicle expert) to advise us his
assessment of ADT for 2020 as quoted in your April 2006 report.
Our OBJECTION to the Draft EIR is that the ADT figures do not reflect the actual (true) current traffic
flows. The survey of traffic flows should be updated and redrawn to reflect the current
flows. Projections to 2020 should also be reflected.
Please send a written reply to this memorandum.
It should be noted that the objective of using the 30th highest hourly volume of the year is that this
volume is used as the peak hour design volume. The percentages of traffic diversion without and
with mitigation measures are not dependent upon the traffic volume, but upon the variables in the
traffic attraction model used in Section 2.4 of the report, i.e. the toll tariff and the perceived
benefits. The conclusions of the report will, therefore, not be any different if the toll and perceived
benefits are expressed in monetary terms of a few years later than 2006.
Local roads such as Kingsway will be inundated by heavy transport vehicles avoiding toll fees. This
would cause the rapid deterioration of road surfaces which were never designed to accommodate
these traffic conditions. It would also result in unacceptable congestion as well as serious accidents
and subsequent loss of life. The report does not give any consideration to heavy traffic that now will
be using Kingsway as a alternative route and the implications that it would have.
The traffic specialist has indicated that, even though only the total traffic analysis results are
provided in the traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11), the analysis of traffic in the report
was performed for all four toll vehicle classes, including the three heavy vehicle classes. Table 5-1
of the report indicates the toll tariffs used at the various toll plazas for heavy vehicles. The
conclusion in the report regarding the significant reduction of traffic diversion after the application of
Local User Discounts to achieve an equitable tariff per km of the toll roads used, are therefore also
applicable to heavy vehicles, provided that the heavy to light vehicle tariff ratios in the report are
not exceeded.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
131
When
As far as the design of toll plazas is concerned, SANRAL has set standards for the levels of service
to be provided at toll plazas with which the proposed toll highway Concessionaire would have to
comply. In order to comply with these standards, the toll plaza designers would have to take into
account the predicted 30th highest hourly volumes in the design year which is usually 8 years after
the initial opening of the toll plaza. This activity would be performed with traffic information
available at the time of the design of the toll plaza (note that similar processes would take place to
design the toll plaza expansions for complying to the level of service after the initial 8 years).
SANRAL requires Concessionaires to build toll plazas and requires toll operators to provide a
service at toll plazas in order to ensure that the queue length at a toll plaza is not more than 6
vehicles per lane, including the vehicle being serviced, for 95% of the time. In the case of the
proposed toll highway, the Concessionaire would be required by SANRAL, in terms of its
“Engineering Requirements” for concession contracts, to use Electronic Toll Collection (ETC),
including non-stop dedicated ETC lanes with an hourly vehicle throughput of 700-800 vehicles per
hour (compared to 250 vehicles per hour in a manual toll lane), to provide the required level of
service at the Isipingo toll plaza. ETC involves communication between a toll tag attached to the
windscreen of a vehicle and “readers” in a toll lane in order to identify the vehicle for toll payment
purposes. Local and other users with ETC tags would, in most cases, not have to stop at the toll
plazas at all and should, therefore, in most cases, experience very little delay.
As a general remark regarding the concerns on the possible underestimation of future traffic, it
should be noted that future traffic congestion on the Prospecton – Winklespruit section would be
even worse and the economic viability results of the proposed project would be even better if
higher traffic volumes than predicted should materialise.
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
As far as heavy vehicle owners who are local users are concerned, it should, therefore, be noted
that Local User Discounts also apply to local heavy vehicle owners. Since heavy vehicle
movements are not commuting movements such as in the case of light vehicles, the Alternative 1
(“do minimum” alternative) mitigation measures would not be adequate for heavy vehicles and
Alternative 2 (the “preferred” alternative) mitigation measures would be required for heavy vehicles.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract, the
Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.5.5
Increased traffic flow projections are based upon an assumption that increased traffic flow is going to
maintain a steady and predictable rate. Oil peak theory and the current global economic downturn
make this a questionable assumption. Mitigations for climate change make it essential that
dependency on carbon producing private motor vehicle use is reduced in favour of greater public
transport facilities (such as rail) and regional development systems that are not dependent upon the
extensive long distance road haulage of goods.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
132
According to the traffic specialist, it is regarded as highly unlikely that humankind would accept a
significantly reduced mobility in the near future. It is also foreseen that through the use of
alternative energy sources, electric cars (for example) are likely to continue to support the current
and growing levels of mobility. Practical experience in a developing country such as South Africa
has indicated that, despite economic downturns, the actual traffic growth usually far exceeds the
predicted traffic growth if a 10 to 15-year period is considered. This is specifically borne out by the
actual traffic growth rates on South African toll roads compared to the predicted growth rates
during the last 10 years.
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
3.7.5.6
There is no proof that the N2 will improve traffic flow around Durban, and concerns those tolls in the
urban area and will merely redistribute traffic flow and cause heavy traffic congestion in other areas.
According to the traffic specialist, significant additional road capacity would be provided in the N2
corridor by the planned addition of a lane in each direction of the N2 between Isipingo and
Amanzimtoti. The table below indicates, at a freeway lane capacity of 2000 vehicles/hr and at a
Kingsway Road lane capacity (one direction) of 900 vehicles/hour, how the capacity of the northsouth roads in the N2 corridor between, for example, Dickens Road and the Amanzimtoti
interchange would change.
When
E
N2 Dickens Road – Amanzimtoti section (in one direction of travel)
Road capacity (one direction)
Without N2 lane addition
With one N2 lane addition per
direction
N2 section
4 000 veh/hour
6 000 veh/hour
Kingsway Road
900 veh/hour
900 veh/hour
Total capacity
4 900 veh/hour
6 900 veh/hour
Traffic flow follows the road of least resistance (like water). As traffic volumes in the abovementioned corridor grow, there is therefore, with the additional capacity on offer on the N2 no doubt
that future traffic flow and, therefore, road safety in the corridor would be improved by the addition
of a lane on the N2. Without such an additional lane, the N2 in this corridor would increasingly
operate under unsafe stop-go traffic conditions and, therefore, much longer journey times.
Traffic problems on other freeway sections in the eThekwini metropolitan area may need other
solutions (possibly an additional ring road), but this does not mean that the traffic flow south of the
Prospecton interchange should not be improved by adding a lane.
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.5.7
APCA repudiates the findings in para 6.4.4 of the Executive Summary and requests substantiation of
the following assertions:
“. . . the N2 between Prospecton and Moss Kolnik [sic] is running close to or exceeding capacity . . .
while the R102 [Kingsway] is currently still operating at acceptable levels of service.”
“Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the traffic diversion impact to LOW
significance during the construction and operation phases.”
The nature of these assertions suggests to APCA that such statements are made by someone
remote from the actual status quo. What appears to not have been taken into account are factors
such as the dramatic increase in traffic arising from (i) growth and expansion within the Southgate
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
133
The traffic specialist has indicated that the study included a level of service analysis, as indicated in
the internationally recognised Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000), in order to determine the
current levels of service. The Basic Freeway Section methodology in the HCM 2000 makes use of
peak hourly traffic volumes (30th highest hourly volume in the year), peak hour factors
(representing traffic peak within the peak hour), number of heavy vehicles in traffic stream, type of
terrain (level, rolling, or mountainous), number of lanes and speed to determine freeway density
which is then categorised into different levels of service. Actual counts and speed measurements
data were used in the analysis (refer to Section 3.2 of the traffic specialist report - Volume 4,
Appendix 11).
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Industrial area and vicinity, and (ii), the development of the shopping centre complexes on the old
‘Twini golf course.
APCA also challenges the belief that the impact of traffic diversions will be low, based on the actual
experience within the past year when, on various separate occasions, either the N2 or
Kingsway/R102 was closed as a result of excessive rainfall causing washaways and/or mudslides.
In every instance the diversion of traffic, whether onto the N2 or along Kingsway, resulted in
extended chaos.
When
The rationale for stating that the “Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the
traffic diversion impact to LOW significance during the construction and operation phases” is found
in the significant reductions in the percentages of diverted traffic indicated by the traffic diversion
modelling methodology described in the traffic specialist report.
The traffic specialist report indicates, for example, that the toll eligible traffic attraction to the N2
without mitigation measures would be 71% whereas it would become 99% with implementation of
the mitigation measures. This result is based on an average value of time for the road users who
will have to exercise the choice. In practice, since the values of time of different road users differ,
the result would be slightly different from that obtained by means of an average value of time. It is,
however, not practical to determine a value of time for every user separately. Practical experience
has, however, shown that an answer of the correct order is obtained with an average value of time.
Insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit is concerned, the proposed mitigation measures involve a change of the toll strategy
for local users by granting Local User Discounts in order to achieve equitable toll payments per km
of toll road section used and this would be achieved by means of Electronic Toll Collection (ETC).
These mitigation measures are capable of reducing the potential traffic diversion significantly, as
indicated in the traffic specialist report, provided that the toll tariffs per km are set at the correct
levels. This statement can be made with a high degree of confidence in view of the accuracy
achieved in predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of other South African toll roads with the
methodology used, as described in the above-mentioned report.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report, which proposes that “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract,
the Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
As far as recent increases in traffic are concerned, these increases do not play a role in the
prediction of the percentage of traffic attracted to the toll road and diverted to the alternative road
at various tariff levels. The increases do, however, underline the fact that a capacity increase on
the N2 will become necessary to serve growing traffic volumes.
It is considered highly erroneous to compare the situation of traffic diversion when a road is closed
and no traffic along the road is possible with a situation where traffic diversion is caused by tolling.
Practical experience in the rest of South Africa indicates attraction rates of above 85% when toll
tariffs are set at the correct levels (hence, the mitigation measures proposing toll tariffs related to
the distance of travel on the N2). It is not considered that the road users of the N2 corridor in
southern eThekwini will behave differently, provided that toll tariffs are set correctly.
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
134
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
When
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.5.8
From a planning perspective, the proposal is piece meal and does not take an integrated view of the
greater Durban metropolitan, including access and egress to the CBD, and to the Northern area. It
will potentially widen a short area of road not taking into account how it will affect the balance of the
road or other roads that it feeds or that feed into it.
Whilst the project itself does not involve the integrated improvement of the motorways feeding the
greater Durban metropolitan area, including access and egress to the CBD and to the northern
areas, it does not imply that it does not fit into integrated planning of freeways for the whole area.
It is not considered that the development of motorways in the eThekwini area has reached a stage
where further capacity improvements on motorways and their access roads or even new
motorways (such as a new ring road) is not sensible or economically viable.
E
3.5.7.9
The latest EIA is altogether insufficient / poor / insigniflcant with regard to the impact a toll highway as
proposed would have on the KINGSWAY ENVIRONMENT in terms of traffic congestion, air and
noise pollution and property devaluation. (Be informed that council rates have in the past year along
this road tripled and quadrupled.) When intensively questioned in this regard during your "divide and
rule" exercise on 18 November at Amanzimtoti, your representative, Mr Pienaar, was at a complete
loss as to give any meaningful response to the concerns/arguments/facts raised by ourselves as
well as many other concerned residents present at the time. He lives in Pretoria and by his own
admittance does not have any personal knowledge of the specific traffic circumstances that prevail in
the specific area. He could not provide any particulars of any person, party or business along
Kingsway that he has interviewed/consulted in his so-called "research", We could not trace any such
person or entity that has been consulted/interviewed in this regard. It is clear that Mr Pienaar's input
in this EIA is based on theories and untested assumed scenarios. He is light years away from the
realities of Kingsway and the impact a toll plaza at Isipingo will have.
These opinions are noted. The traffic, air quality and noise specialist reports and Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR provide an adequate assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project
on Kingsway in terms of traffic diversion and air and noise pollution, respectively.
E
According to the traffic specialist, it has been found in toll road behaviour studies that many
respondents in a survey on the proposed tolling of an upgraded road would indicate that they
would not use the upgraded road, when it is tolled. Studies performed after the opening of a toll
road or the levying of toll on an upgraded existing road have, however, indicated that, provided that
the toll tariffs are set at the correct levels, more than 80% of road users would select the tolled
road, even when much lower percentages had indicated prior to the tolling that they would do so. It
is reasonable to conclude that respondents to a survey would attempt to influence the outcome of
an event such as the proposed tolling of a road that they would use by means of indicating their
unwillingness to pay any level of toll. The practical reality, however, shows a different response
when confronted with the actual choice.
In view of the above-mentioned experience with toll projects, it was considered that tried and tested
methodologies to predict the reaction of traffic to toll would have a better chance of predicting road
user behaviour accurately than a survey of individual local users would do.
It should be noted that the methodology used did actually indicate that the proposed toll strategy
would lead to significant diversion to alternative routes if the maximum tariffs indicated in the FSR
were levied and that, based on this result, the toll strategy should be adjusted to allow for tolling of
local users on the basis of the distance of the toll road used (as a minimum) and that this should be
achieved by means of Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) which would make it possible to implement
this quite efficiently.
The analysis underlying the traffic specialist report was performed on the same basis as for other
toll roads in South Africa in respect of which traffic reaction to toll was predicted quite accurately.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
135
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
This analysis showed that, with the toll strategy altered to allow toll tariffs for local users related to
the distance of use, the predicted traffic diversion to Kingsway would be reduced to levels which
would not be problematic.
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
3.7.5.10
3.8
3.8.1
The improvement of the N2 will allow for an increase in traffic. However this may simply force
congestion onto the linking roads. This aspect does not seem to have been detailed. however, it may
be critical for safety. The bottleneck at Amanzimtoti is a nuisance, but probably helps forestall a
greater pressure nearer Durban. Correcting the one may exacerbate the other. I consider that a
twenty rninute delay at Durban is far more Iikely to lead to road rage than two separated ten minute
delays at Toti and Durban, especially if the user has had to pay a toll fee for the privilege.
Similarly the congestion at Shelly Beach in peak season will probably be exacerbated if the N2 is
able to deliver more vehicles into the area. Without a comprehensive program to upgrade the feeder
roads the toll road could create far greater problems than it solves. Such impacts are not only in
terms of vehicles, but includes downstream impacts such as on the provision of parking in some
areas, and potential for conflicts between hawkers from different areas competing for the best
locations when they become more accessible (particularly confilicts between Eastern Cape
entrepreneurs and local residents along the lower South Coast - and possibly vice versa on the Wild
coast).
•
Vegetation and Flora:
Restricted scope of botanical study
The botanical specialist’s screening analysis was severely restricted by narrow terms of
reference and although some new information was collected and a fresh competent analysis
done, it failed to assess the larger “receiving environment” adequately [motivation provided];
botanical surveys commissioned on exactly the same routes as proposed in SANRAL’s limited
corridor alternative routes, while neglecting surveys in alternative routes with less
environmental impact. Dr Fourie’s thesis on the number and distribution of endemic plants,
and similar important information, has been ignored in the DSR. The botanical survey did little
more than re-visit sites assessed in the previous EIA.
Noted. The traffic specialist has indicated that link roads in the vicinity of interchanges are usually
improved as part of motorway improvements and parallel/subsequent improvements slightly further
away from interchanges by local authorities also often follow to prevent the congestion about which
concern is being expressed. The necessity for studying the need for and the implementation of
such improvements would be the responsibility of the eThekwini Metro.
E
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
It should be noted that the analysis presented in the botanical screening report covered the entire
botanical receiving environment at the same level of detail. Existing field data collected during the
previous EIA, the current screening study and two other studies not related to this project were
used to ground-truth the sensitivity map.
S
It is understood that the mentioned thesis has not been published and efforts to date have been
unable to locate it. Available information on endemic plants appears to already be fairly detailed
and provides a picture of the high levels of botanical richness and endemism in this region. This
was taken into account in assessing the sensitivity of the botanical receiving environment.
It is untrue that the botanical survey did little more than re-visit sites assessed in the previous EIA.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
136
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
The botanical study assembled all known information on vegetation patterns, vegetation condition,
location of plant species of special concern and sensitive habitats. The field survey was used to
ground-truth the sensitivity assessment that emanated from the analysis. Fieldwork undertaken
along the preferred alignment was to address some of the criticisms of the original survey in order
to ensure that the data collected at that time could be used during the current survey. Data from a
number of additional sites were also collected in the field to cover some of the range of habitats not
covered during the initial EIA. Furthermore, the botanical specialist used additional data collected
during two previous broader scale projects in the region as well as published information on floristic
patterns.
3.8.2
Mitigation measures for the protection of rare plants
Plants can be removed and temporarily placed in nurseries during construction and brought
back after the completion of construction [motivation provided]. What are the mitigation
measures that will be in place if the environment is affected in the area. Indigenous plants
and animals should be safe – empower people to look after both vegetation and animals.
Vegetation should be considered but the toll road is needed.
Noted. The specialist botanical study included, amongst others, identification of effective and
practicable mitigation measures (refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1).
S
3.8.3
Issues for assessment
With germination of vegetation, how far can wind germination go over roads?
According to the vegetation specialist, there is no such thing as “wind germination”, but rather wind
“pollination”. Wind pollination of some species can happen over hundreds of kilometres,
regardless of roads, mountains or any other barrier. Wind dispersal and pollination distances vary
widely between species where these take place.
S
3.8.4.1
Comments on the Vegetation and Flora Study
There is little I can add to the comments I have put forward over the last decade or so on this matter.
The importance of biodiversity conservation within the Pondoland Centre of Endemism is vital for the
all reasons which have been stated and re-stated. Your EIA repeatedly speaks of environmental
high impact under the various categories and sections and then finds this impact acceptable saying
that the SANRAL option is the best. No balanced opinion could ever agree with your relegation of
the natural environment so completely in favour of expediency. In my opinion, the proposed N2 toll
road will be an environmental disaster for the Pondoland Centre of Endemism.
The EIA team and relevant specialists reject any allegations of “relegation of the natural
environment so completely in favour of expediency”.
E
3.8.4.2
ECP is particularly concerned with Section 6 of the road from Lusikisiki to the Mthamvuna River, and
are opposed to the proposed development of a new "greenfields" road through this area for the
following reason. The proposed road crosses a number of spectacular river gorges, including the
Msikaba, Mthentu and Mzamba Rivers and bisects the globally important Pondoland Centre of
Endemism. As the Draft EIR indicates all proposed routes or alignments of the road would result in
medium to high residual negative impacts to vegetation, fauna and aquatic ecosystems. Of particular
concern is that, the proposed new road would lead to significant and potentially irreversible changes
to the Pondoland-Ugu Sandstone Coastal Sourveld vegetation type. The extent of this impact is
highlighted by the fact that, as a result of the proposed development, the conservation status of this
grassland would shift from its current status of Vulnerable to that of Endangered. This is not
something which we can support.
The biodiversity significance of the region, and the fact that it is both threatened and under-
Noted – refer to updated Sections 12.2.1 and 14.1, Volume 1 of the Final EIR in this regard. The
vegetation and flora specialist report (Volume 2, Appendix 1, Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3) and Volume
1, Draft/Final EIR (Section 14.1) include consideration of the potential impact of the proposed toll
highway on the ability to undertake effective conservation, biodiversity conservation planning or
establish conservation areas in the region.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
137
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
conserved, is highlighted in the National Biodiversity Spatial Assessment and the National Protected
Area Expansion Strategy. Construction of a major highway through the area will seriously hamper
national and provincial efforts to implement protected area expansion plans.
3.8.4.3
The Draft EIR recommends that the developer explore forms of engagement and/or joint action with Noted. Refer to further discussion in this regard in Section 14.1 of the Final EIR.
the regional conservation authorities with regard to development of an effective conservation plan
for Pondoland and off-site mitigation measures (such as the establishment of equivalent sized
grassland and forest conservation areas elsewhere). However, while such measures are to be
welcomed (and indeed, should be standard practice on the part of developers) it must be
recognized that establishment of formal protected areas in communal areas requires extensive
consultation and long timeframes, and is unlikely to effectively mitigate against the loss of
ecosystem services (ecological processes) brought about by habitat fragmentation, further spread of
invasive alien species and the indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the road and its
intended purpose - the economic upliftment of the area. This is also a particular concern with regard
to the aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
Given the high probability of potentially irreversible loss of globally significant biodiversity, and the
fact that the biodiversity and scenic beauty of Pondoland is the cornerstone of sustainable
development and local economic development in the area, ECP is of the view that it is important to
assess the extent, nature and feasibility of off-site mitigation required, before a positive RoD is
issued. An “equivalent (or greater) sized area of grassland or forest elsewhere" (as stated in 6.6.3 (a)
of Volume 1: Main Report) is unlikely to fully "offset" the direct impact of the road in terms of
biodiversity loss, let alone the indirect and cumulative impacts. As such we recommend a feasibility
assessment be compile that determines; the value of the biodiversity likely to be incurred, the nature
and extent of the particular vegetation types required to offset this loss, a comparison of alternative
spatial areas of suitable land that could feasibly be contracted for conservation purposes, the costs
of such offsets, the appropriate process (including stakeholder engagement) and institutional
arrangements to achieve effective mitigation in this manner. It is strongly suggested that these
processes (feasibility studies, fine-scale planning and the stakeholder engagement) to establish new
conservation areas be fully aligned and integrated with the GEF/UNDP-funded Wild Coast Project
currently underway in the region.
The resulting "off-set" process should be included in the Record of Decision (RoD) and adequate
funds to achieve mitigation should be set aside by the developing agency before the RoD is issued.
3.9
3.9.1
•
3.9.2
Social:
Social interaction in Pondoland
The DSR does not take cognisance of how the rural people live in Pondoland [description
provided].
Social study for screening of alternatives
The socio-economic screening studies have been done at a desktop level – this is
unacceptable practice where rural sustainable livelihoods are at risk as a consequence of the
road.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
138
E
The social and heritage specialist studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the
EIA process included investigation and assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project
on the way of life of rural communities (refer to Volume 3, Appendices 5 and 7, respectively).
S
The social implications of the alternative alignments considered in the screening study are
considered on an equitable basis and provide an adequate basis for a comparative analysis of the
alternative alignments.
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
3.9.3
Social issues for assessment
How would the study assess the impact on the daily life of people once the road is fenced
because many pedestrians use the existing road between Port St Johns and Mthatha and East
London. Is there any mitigation for HIV and AIDS? How would social impacts be addressed
because communities would be divided. What will the socio-economic impacts be for people
who live between Port Shepstone and Durban?
These issues and concerns were considered in the social and economic specialist studies
undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process, as appropriate. The
specialist studies included, amongst others, identification of effective and practicable mitigation
measures (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 5 and Volume 4, Appendix 13, respectively).
S
3.9.4
Social impact assessment
There has been no social impact study on the proposed toll road.
Noted. Refer to Sections 8.2, 9.2 and 9.3.5 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 3, Appendix 5 of the
Draft/Final EIR.
S
3.9.5
Comment on Social Impact Assessment Report
It is noted in Appendix 5 – Social Report that the percentage of the population living below the
Minimum Living Level is much larger in the Eastern Cape. The Social Report is qualified having not
been able to meet the interested parties from Local Government to the Leaders in the rural areas.
This suggests to me that the people need to be supported locally as they would be inter-dependent
on each other. Any segregation of these groups would be catastrophic. I also suggest that the Toll
Road with limited access would segregate these social groups.
Noted.
E
3.9.5.1
To avoid the pitfalls of split responsibilities between East Cape and Kwa Zulu Natal, I suggested that
the proposed Toll Road in KwaZulu Natal be scrapped and that Central Government reviews the
support which is required in the Eastern Cape. In order to raise the standard of living above the
Minimum Living Level the utilizing of scarce resources must be optimized.
Noted.
E
3.9.5.2
DEIR Table 10: Key Potential Residual Impacts: With regard to the Mthamvuna River to the Isipingo
interchange, a social impact of POSITIVE HIGH significance is anticipated, in respect of increased
employment opportunities during the construction and operational phase. Any impact during the
construction phase should be rejected as forming any justification for the project, whilst during the
operational phase the creation of a few jobs associated with the collection of tolls can hardly be
regarded as significant.
It should be noted that the proposed works along the existing R61 and N2 between the Mthamvuna
River and the Isipingo Interchange are described in detail in Section 4.2.7, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR and include the following: upgrading of at-grade intersections, construction of Port
Edward and Southbroom interchanges, etc. Note that the assessment of the potential increased
employment opportunities associated with the proposed toll highway has nowhere in the social
specialist report been presented as forming “justification for the project”.
E
3.9.5.3
It is also contended that the negative social impacts in this area have been inadequately predicted
and articulated in the report; particularly, the secondary effects of the road construction phase and
the operational phase.
This opinion is noted.
E
3.9.5.4
SWC question the assertion that communities in the Greenfields section are ‘Impoverished’. A
statement of impoverishment is highly dependent upon the criteria used to gauge ‘impoverishment’,
and is therefore more a point of view and a generalization than a fact. Wild Coast communities might
be cash strapped, but they have a wealth of natural resources. If developments destroy the natural
resource base which Wild Coast communities depend upon, then they will be both cash strapped
and further ‘impoverished’.
Noted.
E
3.9.5.5
Based on the socio-economic impacts detailed above that do not form part of the EIR, APCA rejects
the 5th paragraph of Item 6.4.3 of the Executive Summary that states: “. . . it is considered that the
Noted. Refer to relevant responses provided above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
139
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
potential social benefits of the proposed project . . . being beneficial for both the Eastern Cape and
KwaZulu-Natal provinces.”
3.9.5.6
The social assessment report included in the EIR is also deemed to be deficient as it applies to the
social impacts that will result in the South Durban Area. There is no substance in the report to
support the conclusion that the project would be of social benefit to the people of Kwazulu Natal.
This report does recommend however that a full economic assessment be carried out in relation to
this area.
As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project team
that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the
jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to deal with
the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for the
declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance therewith.
E
3.9.5.7
I am very concerned that the social impact studies are vulnerable to manipulation. Both rural and
more developed communities can appreciate the benefits of a project when they are highlighted for
them, but unfortunately the experience in this region is that presentations by proponents are biased
and do not give sufficient information or weight to the possible negative impacts. Less educated
people rarely challenge the statements of experts, however outrageous, therefore the
professionalism of those experts is critical, and any bias is unacceptable. Farmers and residents
who are going to lose their land, or who will be vulnerable to the negative impacts of living near a
major road, seem largely unaware of the disadvantages. This seems to indicate that the
communications were not adequate, although it is accepted that it is not always easy to achieve a
fair balance.
The social specialist has indicated that great care was taken to ensure that social categories of
people were able to express their views on both potential benefits and disadvantages that would
arise from the proposed greenfields route, and on key aspects of their livelihoods. All were made
aware of any disadvantages, and expressed their views regarding these, and on any
recommended mitigation (refer to Appendix 3 of the social specialist report in Volume 3, Appendix
5 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
3.9.5.8
As an example of the strange approach to this study, it was stated that the impact of lighting at the
Mthentu toll plaza would be reduced when the local communities got electric lights in their homes.
This assumes that the local community will not go to bed at night, that looking at the night sky is not
part of their culture, and that they can afford electricity. Clearly the assessment did not adequately
consider the culture of the receiving environment.
Note that the visual specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 10) stated that a toll plaza within an unlit
night landscape would act as a beacon at night and be in contrast to the unlit nightscape. It is
assumed that with time, areas currently without electricity would at some point in the future become
electrified and one can also assume that there would be people within the local communities that
could indeed afford electricity, as occurs throughout the rest of the rural communities in South
Africa. However, it is incorrect to assume that rural communities will remain poor and thus unable
A similar problem occurs with the application of the same noise level standard in a relatively silent to afford electricity. It is in this regard that an assumption can be made that sometime in the future
rural area as is applied in the developed areas at Isipingo. This is probably inappropriate, and the the toll plaza would not remain the only lit structure in the landscape.
relative impact would certainly be far greater and more stressful to the rural community, as well as to
According to the noise specialist, a Noise Impact Assessment is based on quantitative data and
the natural receiving environment.
objective procedures in line with the World Health Organisation Guidelines. The potential impact of
measured or predicted noise levels is assessed by comparing these with typical rating levels for
noise in districts – including rural districts (refer to SANS 10103, Table 2 in Section 2.3 of the noise
specialist report in Volume 3, Appendix 8).
E
3.9.5.9
This report divides the N2 into discrete sections, one of which is Port Shepstone - Isipingo. However,
the Winkelspruit - Isipingo section needs to be treated separately because of its metropolitan and
industrial characteristics.
The social specialist has indicated that cognizance was taken of the industrial characteristics of the
road between Winkelspruit and Port Shepstone. The degree to which the route was disaggregated
and considered in the impact assessment was given careful consideration and the final decision
reflects a balance between the need to disaggregate as logically as possible whilst maintaining an
internal consistency to the reporting for the EIR as a whole.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
140
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
3.9.5.10
The report fails to capture the nuances of the South Durban Basin, beyond a brief discussion of the
issues on p. 155. The summary of impacts with and without mitigation is highly questionable.
These opinions are noted.
Response
E
3.9.5.11
The SIA has failed to be specific in its conclusion and admits that there are negatives. This in itself is
an indicator that the consultants have attempted to down play the real concerns and evidence of this
comes from the recommendation about fencing. These issues distract from the core social issues of
money being claimed out of people’s pockets.
The social specialist and EIA team reject any allegation of attempts to “down play” any potential
impacts. As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA
project team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA
Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been
indicated that to deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and
unlawful as the procedure for the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are
prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place
in accordance therewith.
E
3.9.5.12
The EIA has failed to consider actual taxi prices, petrol price increases, car prices, service prices
and the influx of people using the highway for labour in areas north of the Isipingo toll plaza.
Noted.
E
3.10
3.10.1
•
The Terms of Reference for the noise specialist study undertaken during the Impact Assessment
phase of the EIA process were provided in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.8 of the DSR/FSR. The noise
specialist report is presented in Volume 3, Appendix 8 of the Draft/Final EIR. The EIA process
included notification of relevant authorities, such as the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality, of the
availability of the Draft EIR (including specialist reports) for review and comment.
S
E
3.10.2
Comment on Noise Specialist Study
The issue of noise is not considered in its grim reality and given the weighting it deserves. Habitation
within ten kilometres either side of the proposed freeway will be affected by the continual noise of
vehicles for twenty four hours of the day and night.
According to the noise specialist, a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) is based on quantitative data
and objective procedures in line with the World Health Organisation Guidelines. The impact of
measured or predicted noise levels is assessed by comparing these with typical rating levels for
noise in districts – including rural districts (refer to SANS 10103, Table 2 in Section 2.3 of the noise
specialist report in Volume 3, Appendix 8).
E
Noise:
Comment on DSR
Increase in noise and pollution from this road (in eThekwini) will be disastrous – there can be
no possible mitigation measures to noise and pollution. As a resident on Kingsway, will be
severely affected by the noise of heavy duties. Scientific study should be conducted detailing
the existing noise levels in the surrounding communities; the study should also model/predict
the impact and noise levels that may be generated by the proposed development and also
recommend appropriate mitigation measures; detailed information of the noise impact
specialist study should be submitted to the Pollution Control and Risk Management Section of
the eThekwini Health Department. When the existing highway is widened, will every effort be
made to minimise noise? – e.g. not make the surface too coarse because the noise does
come across and there is already a lot of road noise.
When
There is a very close correlation between the “typical levels” in SANS 10103, Table 2 (Section 2.3
of the noise specialist report) and a community’s subjective response to noise in the respective
districts. For example, if the night-time level of noise from road traffic does not exceed 35 dBA
outdoors in a rural district it is improbable that the road noise will be intrusive to the rural
community, if at all noticeable. Refer also to Section 2, Section 3.4.1, Section 3.5.1 and Section
4.9.4 of the noise specialist report.
3.10.2.1
There is acknowledgement that noise levels are exceptionally high in some instances. The
statement (6.4.5) that "Based on the ADT values the predicted increase in the day-time noise rating
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
141
Section 4.11.13 of the noise specialist report and the Executive Summary also state the following:
“…However, any increase will exacerbate an already unacceptably high exposure to road traffic
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
level over the subsequent 10 and 15 years would be barely significant" is challenged. What
prediction model has been used? It is not an argument to present the 'increase' as being acceptable
if the current situation is already "exceptionally high". During quieter ambient night-time conditions,
noise levels could even be greater and more deleterious to mental health.
noise on residential land in this suburb. Thus it is indicated that the existing levels, let alone any
increase, are not acceptable. According to the noise specialist, the prediction model used is SANS
10210, Calculating and predicting road traffic noise. The model has been extensively validated
both Nationally and Internationally.
3.10.2.2
The proposal to provide smoother approaches to the Toll plazas should apply to the entire length of
any Freeway in the interests of mental health of the rural populations either side.
Noted.
E
3.10.2.3
The same treatment is given to the noise levels which are already unacceptably high (Executive
Summary uses the term very high), in fact considered as excessive already along Kingsway and the
N2, but nothing is said in Executive Summary about their Specialist’s (Jongens Keet Associates)
Identification of Risk Sources, giving their recommendations and mitigations Vol 3 Appendix 8
section 4.11.13: “Within the physical constraints imposed on noise mitigation alternatives in
Umbogintwini and similar land south along the R102 it is recommended that serious consideration
be given to attracting through traffic away from the R102 onto the N2. This would imply that the
section of the N2 Highway skirting the residential suburbs south of Durban NOT to be tolled.”
Details of the conclusions of the noise specialist study in relation to specific project-scale and toll
funding-related aspects are presented in Section 14.5, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
3.10.2.4
The existing, and potential future noise impact along on the alternative R102 at Umbogintwini
(without and with tolling of the existing N2) is assessed to be of VERY HIGH intensity and
significance. Why is only Umbogintwini mentioned, what about Amanzimtoti etc. regarding
unacceptable noise levels?
The noise specialist has indicated that the calculated results at Umbogintwini were based on
available topographical data and computer capacity at the time and were used to provide an
indication of noise conditions along the entire R102. Road noise predictions are complex and
extremely time-consuming. Using the latest computer algorithms, the fastest desk-top computers
available, and topographical data of the required resolution, it will take several months to calculate
existing noise levels and to predicted future noise levels for alternative noise mitigation scenarios
on land adjacent to the entire length of the R102 with an acceptable degree of confidence.
E
3.10.2.5
As regards noise, para 6.4.5, it cannot be acceptable that where the current noise level is of “very
high intensity and significance” that noise mitigation alternatives “cannot be implemented” merely
because they are impractical. High noise levels must be rectified whatever their cause. As stated in
para 6.5.2, the noise level is “unacceptably high”. The relevant noise mitigation measures referred
to in para. 6.6.1 should be published in detail as part of the EIR and not referred to obliquely as
“determined and incorporated at the design stage with due regard to cost”. This is patently not
acceptable.
Note that paragraph 6.4.5 of the Draft EIR Executive Summary referred to noise rating levels on
residential flanking Kingsway, Umbogintwini, and similar land further south along the R102, while
paragraph 6.6.1 referred to potential noise impacts associated with the proposed additional lanes
on the existing N2 between Amanzimtoti and Prospecton. As mentioned in Section 14.5 and the
Executive Summary of the Final EIR, the rehabilitation of the existing R102 road surface with a
low-noise road surface would result in reduction in noise emission to levels below existing levels
even after the increase in traffic predicted after 15 years without or with tolling. This represents the
limit of technical mitigation measures that could be applied to the R102 directly adjacent to
properties.
E
3.10.2.6
A similar problem occurs with the application of the same noise level standard in a relatively silent
rural area as is applied in the developed areas at Isipingo. This is probably inappropriate, and the
relative impact would certainly be far greater and more stressful to the rural community, as well as to
the natural receiving environment.
According to the noise specialist, a Noise Impact Assessment is based on quantitative data and
objective procedures in line with the World Health Organisation Guidelines. The potential impact of
measured or predicted noise levels is assessed by comparing these with typical rating levels for
noise in districts – including rural districts (refer to SANS 10103, Table 2 in Section 2.3 of the noise
specialist report in Volume 3, Appendix 8).
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
142
When
As mentioned in the noise specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 8), Section 14.5 and Executive
Summary of the Final EIR, the rehabilitation of the existing R102 road surface with a low-noise
road surface would result in reduction in noise emission to levels below existing levels even after
the increase in traffic predicted after 15 years without or with tolling. This represents the limit of
technical mitigation measures that could be applied to the R102 directly adjacent to properties.
The noise specialist has indicated that attracting through-traffic away from the R102 onto the N2 by
non-tolling of the N2 skirting residential suburbs south of Durban, or effective implementation of the
recommended traffic diversion mitigation measures, would result in a further modest reduction in
noise levels.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
There is a very close correlation between the “typical levels” in SANS 10103, Table 2 (Section 2.3
of the noise specialist report) and a community’s subjective response to noise in the respective
districts. For example, if the night-time level of noise from road traffic does not exceed 35 dBA
outdoors in a rural district it is improbable that the road noise will be intrusive to the rural
community, if at all noticeable. Refer also to Section 2, Section 3.4.1, Section 3.5.1 and Section
4.9.4 of the noise specialist report.
3.11
3.11.1
•
Opinion surveys:
Majority of users of the toll road would fall into the lower-income bracket – what would their
reactions be to the toll fees levied and also the possible implementation of electronic devices
should that be the desired alternative?; it is assumed studies have been done regarding likely
user reactions. Proper opinion survey should be done encompassing all affected persons in all
areas.
According to the traffic specialist, it has been found in toll road behaviour studies that many
respondents in a survey on the proposed tolling of an upgraded road would indicate that they
would not use the upgraded road, when it is tolled. Studies performed after the opening of a toll
road or the levying of toll on an upgraded existing road have, however, indicated that, provided that
the toll tariffs are set at the correct levels, more than 80% of road users would select the tolled
road, even when much lower percentages had indicated prior to the tolling that they would do so. It
is reasonable to conclude that respondents to a survey would attempt to influence the outcome of
an event such as the proposed tolling of a road that they would use by means of indicating their
unwillingness to pay any level of toll. The practical reality, however, shows a different response
when confronted with the actual choice.
S
In view of the above-mentioned experience with toll projects, it was considered that tried and tested
methodologies to predict the reaction of traffic to toll would have a better chance of predicting road
user behaviour accurately than a survey of individual local users would do.
3.12
3.12.1
3.12.2
3.12.3
3.12.3.1
•
Planning and Development:
Land use planning
Need to look at potential land use and development in the area. Important to identify areas
that have the potential for future tourism development and then to determine how the proposed
alignment will impact on these areas. If the toll road is placed near the coast it will unlock the
development potential and the same thing will happen on the Wild Coast as happened on he
north coast – need the road away from the coast with tourism routes down to the coast.
Development planning
How far is there consultation with people in terms of other planned projects so that the road
doesn’t just bypass the people? – these cannot be overlooked; if there is no stopping trade,
people will just stay poor. Expensive and very often environmentally unfriendly housing
developments will be unleashed , e.g. KZN North and South Coast – these do not provide as
much income to communities as properly run eco-tourism ventures. Study should be done on
what exactly is intended for the social and environmental structure of the Wild Coast before
the road is planned and built so that the road can meet these requirements.
Comment on Planning and Development Specialist Study
This report in Sections 5.13.3 - 5.13.4 lists the concerns of the Ethekweni Municipality and business in
the South Durban Basin. These issues should have been covered in the Socio-economic Impact
Report.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
143
These issues and concerns were considered in the tourism and planning/development specialist
studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3,
Appendix 6 and Volume 4, Appendix 12, respectively).
S
These issues and concerns were considered in the tourism and planning/development specialist
studies undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3,
Appendix 6 and Volume 4, Appendix 12, respectively). Also refer to relevant responses in Table 1
in this regard.
S
Noted. Refer further to responses under Item 3.1.4 above.
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
3.12.3.2
No particular mitigation measures for the South Durban Basin are given, but the report recommends
that the municipality be consulted by SANRAL.
3.13
3.13.1
3.13.1.1
•
Fauna
Comment on Fauna Specialist Study
The statement that outside of protected areas fauna is poor is questionable, given the general lack
of data about the area and given that fauna also includes insects, amphibians, birds etc.
3.13.1.2
The original proposal was modified to ensure that the route avoided directly impacting on two current
vulture colonies in the Eastern Cape. There appears to be no assessment of the potential for
colonies at the currently proposed bridge sites. This matters because vultures from time to time reestablish at new nesting sites. Exactly what provokes this seems unclear, but the example from Oribi
suggests that small changes to the environment, due to agriculture, erosion, or climate variations
may be responsible. For all endangered species we need to be proactive in ensuring that they have
a natural environment with sufficient flexibility to allow them to cope with change. The assessment
therefore needs to consider not only the current vulture colony sites but also their "preferred
alternatives". This aspect also applies to other red data species, and to any affected natural
ecosystems. A precautionary approach is therefore essential, and this the proposal fails to achieve.
3.14
3.14.1
3.14.1.1
•
Visual
Comment on Visual Specialist Study
It was stated that the impact of lighting at the Mthentu toll plaza would be reduced when the local
communities got electric lights in their homes. This assumes that the local community will not go to
bed at night, that looking at the night sky is not part of their culture, and that they can afford
electricity. Clearly the assessment did not adequately consider the culture of the receiving
environment.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
144
Response
When
The planning/development specialist report recommends that consultation take place on the
proposed tolling strategy for the area affected within the jurisdiction of the eThekwini Metropolitan
Municipality, if the proposed toll highway were approved. This could be undertaken as part of the
procedure for the declaration of a toll road, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act,
1998.
E
According to the fauna specialist, faunal impoverishment outside of protected areas in the northern
part of the Eastern Cape, i.e. the Transkei, is evident in many Atlas studies. Even a general
perusal of maps for birds, frogs and reptiles in detailed Atlas surveys highlights the depauperate
nature of the remaining fauna in the area.
E
The fauna specialist has indicated that there is no published literature on selection criteria for
nesting/roosting sites by Cape Vultures. That no nesting or roosting sites have been identified
within several kilometers of the cliffs adjacent to the proposed bridge sites would seem to indicate
that the vultures find the area unsuitable. Moreover, the total extent of cliff habitat that would be
affected by the bridge crossing sites would be only a small fraction of the total gorge area in the
Transkei region.
E
Note that the visual specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 10) stated that a toll plaza within an unlit
night landscape would act as a beacon at night and be in contrast to the unlit nightscape. It is
assumed that with time, areas currently without electricity would at some point in the future become
electrified and one can also assume that there would be people within the local communities that
could indeed afford electricity, as occurs throughout the rest of the rural communities in South
Africa. However, it is incorrect to assume that rural communities will remain poor and thus unable
to afford electricity. It is in this regard that an assumption can be made that sometime in the future
the toll plaza would not remain the only lit structure in the landscape.
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 4:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to planning and policy, with responses from the EIA project team
and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.2.1
4.1.3
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Integration with other planning initiatives:
The project is not supported by other regional spatial development plans
No substantiated argument that the toll road meets an established need identified against a
strategic regional background; thus impossible to see how the project can be justified other
than as a purely commercial venture. Without the backup of independent research into the
social, community and economic needs of the region, and an independent analysis of traffic
origins, volumes, routes and destinations, which are then evaluated against a regional
development plan, these claims are nothing more than speculation at best and blatant
misrepresentation at worst and cannot be used to justify the need for a toll road, let alone the
selection of a preferred route. In light of the studies now being conducted into the new
National Park in the area, there is no comprehensive development plan in place which
supports the need for the new highway. The suitability of the road needs to be considered in
light of a tourism development plan for the region.
When
This is incorrect. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, the Wild Coast region has been identified as an
area for strategic economic development in accordance with Government’s Spatial Development
Initiative (SDI) Strategy. The Wild Coast SDI identified the provision of a major road, such as the
proposed toll road, as an important catalyst for achievement of its objectives since it would
enhance access to the region and would facilitate development of the eco-tourism potential area of
the area. Other relevant planning documents which make reference to the proposed project
include, amongst others, the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of certain municipalities and the
Eastern Cape Strategic Growth and Development Plan. The compatibility of the proposed project
with these and other plans was evaluated during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process.
S
Integration with Eastern Cape SDF
There is a need for integrating the infrastructural development of the Eastern Cape.
Sentiments expressed in the Eastern Cape SDF (2005) have been omitted – the proposed
road will not enhance the nodal development of the Eastern Cape as proposed in the SDF.
Noted. The compatibility of the proposed project with these and other plans was evaluated during
the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process.
S
It would appear that the SANRAL preferred route is not compatible with the Wild Coast Spatial
Development Framework. Although it does support the SDF objectives, its location avoids the
preferred areas highlighted for development. Ironically this is deliberate - since the road seeks to
utilise areas of lower expropriation cost and less social conflict. However, the benefits may be
equally reduced. This reflects the publicly stated intent of SANRAL that the road is not primarily for
the benefit of the disadvantaged communities, but to improve the national long-distance road
network. Which means that any local benefit is only coincidental, and is emphasised only to mitigate
the objections of the affected parties.
The Final EIR (Section 15.3 of Volume 1) provides a consolidated evaluation of the compatibility of
the proposed toll highway (in particular the greenfields sections) with relevant Eastern Cape
regional and strategic planning initiatives. SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed project is
provided in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
Co-operative governance
Proposal for the road seems at the behest of SANRAL only, with SANRAL acting in isolation
at the exclusion of other significant sectors of government; to undertake such a project
without an overall strategic plan in place with full involvement of all potential roleplayers
seems ludicrous in the extreme – request that EIA includes a holistic approach to the
economic upgrading of the region, an approach which involves fully other government sectors;
an interpretation given which arises from an SDI suggests that there is a “need for this road” –
it is unclear whether the SDI has identified a need for an improved road infrastructure in the
region generally or does it refer specifically to the proposed project.
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa. These
tasks are undertaken with due involvement of other government sectors, as required. The Wild
Coast SDI identified the provision of a major road as an important catalyst in the region. It was
envisaged, as outlined in a call for “expressions of interest” in 1997, that the major road would be a
“new toll road”.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
145
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Wild Coast Conservation and Sustainable Development Plan
A SEA from the Wild Coast plan should be used as a basis in planning the proposed road.
Advisable that contact be made with the Wilderness Foundation to look at the SDF for the
Wild Coast.
Noted. The compatibility of the proposed project with these and other planning initiatives was
evaluated during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to planning/development
specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 12, Addendum to the planning/development specialist
report in Volume 5 and Section 15.3 of Volume 1 of the Final EIR).
S
4.1.4.1
The SANRAL preferred route is counter to strategic development policies based on ecological
sensitivity that have been complied for the region, such as the Wild Coast Conservation and
Development Plan (WCCSDP). Unless these move from document to a policy level, with capacity
for implementation, it means any stated mitigations of protection to the affected environment based
in plans such as these are based on assumption.
Noted. The Final EIR (Section 15.3 of Volume 1) provides a consolidated evaluation of the
compatibility of the proposed toll highway (in particular the greenfields sections) with relevant
Eastern Cape regional and strategic planning initiatives.
E
4.1.4.2
WESSA feels that not much cognisance of the Integrated Regional development Plan has taken
place and the latest EIA has been developed in isolation with strong focus on the SANRAL preferred
route.
This is incorrect. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Wild Coast
region has been identified as an area for strategic economic development in accordance with
Government’s Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Strategy. The Wild Coast SDI identified the
provision of a major road, such as the proposed toll road, as an important catalyst for achievement
of its objectives since it would enhance access to the region and would facilitate development of
the eco-tourism potential area of the area. Other relevant planning documents which make
reference to the proposed project include, amongst others, the Integrated Development Plans
(IDPs) of certain municipalities and the Eastern Cape Strategic Growth and Development Plan.
E
4.1.5
Strategic Framework for Road Infrastructure
Why won’t SANRAL wait until the Strategic Framework for Road Infrastructure has been
promulgated? – is it because they are scared their plans for tolling will take a serious setback?
USCATA will call on the Minister of the DEAT to halt this EIA after receiving the Scoping
Report, until such time as the Minister of Transport has received clear guidelines as to the
future of road transport development in the country, which will derive from his National Freight
Logistics Strategy; the need for the N2 to be tolled at Amanzimtoti will be unnecessary and
trust there will be a return to the fuel levy being dedicated once more to the sorely needed
road upgrading, maintenance and development in the country.
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa. Available
road planning documents have, as far as possible, been taken into account in the planning of the
proposed project. Refer further to rationale for tolling at a national level in Section 3.2 of the
DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
S
4.1.6
IDPs and SDFs
In terms of spatial development frameworks and patterns of development it was very
important to consult with all the affected municipalities; integrated strategy needed otherwise
the project might wrongly be kicked out – were these frameworks being taken into
consideration?
Noted. The compatibility of the proposed project with these and other planning initiatives was
evaluated during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process – refer to the
planning/development specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 12, Addendum to the
planning/development specialist report in Volume 5 and Section 15.3, Volume 1 of the Final EIR.
S
4.1.7
Development Plans, Transport Plans, Transport Framework and Initiatives of the eThekwini
Municipality for the local area
The traffic diversion onto the local road network will add to congestion, air and noise pollution on these
roads and thus reduce the quality of the life for local residents using these roads.
Diverted traffic will likely result in more accidents (and accident costs) due to the higher accident
rate experienced on alternative roads in southern eThekwini. Thus, the toll road will likely make the
southern eThekwini road network a less "safe, healthy and secure environment", which is an objective
The traffic, air quality and noise specialist reports and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provide an
adequate assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on Kingsway in terms of
traffic diversion and air and noise pollution, respectively.
E
4.1.4
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The traffic specialist has indicated that, insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along
the N2 between Prospecton and Winklespruit is concerned, the proposed mitigation measures
involve a change of the toll strategy for local users by granting Local User Discounts in order to
achieve equitable toll payments per km of toll road section used - this could be achieved by means
146
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
of both the IDP and ITP. This will increase the indirect cost of living and working in southern eThekwini.
The toll costs will increase the direct costs to doing business in southern eThekwini, which will reduce
the potential economic growth of the area from the expansion of the capacity of the N2.
Traffic diverted onto the local roads in southern eThekwini will increase the road maintenance cost
for the municipality due to faster road surface deterioration. It is estimated that the maintenance costs
of the local road network to be R1.23 million and R1.97 million per year higher in 2010 and 2020
respectively, due to the implementation of the toll road.
An increase in the direct cost of travelling on the N2 and an increase in traffic congestion on the
R102 will impede access to coastal towns on the South Coast with a dominant tourism industry such
as Scottburgh, Pennington, Hibberdene, Port Shepstone and Margate, amongst others, will reduce
their relative competitiveness and development potential.
Barring any major development south of Kingsburgh, growth in traffic volumes on the N2 and R102
south of Kingsburgh/lllovo is not expected to exceed the existing capacity on these roads. Thus, the
N2 Toll Road will increase the cost of travelling between areas south of lllovo using the Umkomaas
and Scottburgh off ramps and the rest of eThekwini without significant benefits to these road users.
This will increase the cost of doing business in these areas and reduce their investment potential
relative to areas closer to Durban.
of Electronic Toll Collection (ETC). These mitigation measures are capable of reducing the
potential traffic diversion significantly, as indicated in the traffic specialist report (refer to Volume 4,
Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR), provided that the toll tariffs per km are set at the correct levels.
This statement can be made with a high degree of confidence in view of the accuracy achieved in
predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of other South African toll roads with the methodology
used, as described in the above-mentioned report.
When
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report which proposes that “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract,
the Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...” These measures
are included in Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR and will be incorporated into the Draft EMP for the
proposed project (refer to Section 16.7.5 of Volume 1, Final EIR).
As far as the concern regarding an increase in the direct cost of travelling on the N2 and the
resulting impediment of access to coastal towns on the South Coast is concerned, it is pointed out
that a far greater impediment to the competitiveness and development potential of these towns will
be created if the proposed addition of lanes to the N2 does not take place and future congestion on
the N2 is allowed to just take its course. With very limited funds available, the probability of the
lane additions occurring is much higher if toll financing is employed.
According to the traffic specialist, it is correct to state that users of the N2 between
Kingsburgh/Illovo and the Umkomaas/Scottburgh off-ramps will not experience significant benefits
immediately. In order to ensure that toll tariffs for local users are at least in line with the shortest
likely distances of their travel along the N2, significant Local User Discounts to be implemented by
means of ETC technology are proposed as mitigation measures in the traffic specialist report.
If a medium to long term view of this section of the N2 were, however, taken, the levying of toll
(discounted for local users) will ensure that high quality road rehabilitation, resealing and
maintenance of this road section could be funded.
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
147
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
4.1.8
4.1.8.1
Development Plan for the Pondoland Area
The proposal for the route has been developed in isolation of consideration of a broader socio –
economic development plan.
Response
4.1.8.2
When
This is incorrect. As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Wild Coast
region has been identified as an area for strategic economic development in accordance with
Government’s Spatial Development Initiative (SDI) Strategy. The Wild Coast SDI identified the
provision of a major road, such as the proposed toll road, as an important catalyst for achievement
of its objectives since it would enhance access to the region and would facilitate development of
the eco-tourism potential area of the area. Other relevant planning documents which make
reference to the proposed project include, amongst others, the Integrated Development Plans
(IDPs) of certain municipalities and the Eastern Cape Strategic Growth and Development Plan.
E
The EIR suggests that any broader macro-economic benefits that the road might bring would be
dependent upon the formulation and implementation of a broader socio-economic development
plan, and that without this it is unlikely that any of the regional benefits as a consequence of the
road will be realized. This calls for the proposal to be considered within a broader socio–economic
development plan, yet the proposal for the route has been developed in isolation of this. Given the
lack of a broader socio–economic development plan needed to realize socio economic benefits of
the road, in combination with the cumulative negative impacts that will arise as a consequence of
the road, one has a likely situation where very few positive impacts might accrue, but a great many
negative impacts might result. The net consequence is likely to be one of increasing social and
environmental pressures and degradation, resulting in an increasing spiral of poverty and inequality.
This begs the question why the road is being considered in isolation and again points to its founding
motivation as being that of a business proposal rather than an infrastructure development serving
the best national interests.
Refer to the SEA for the Wild Coast (2006) undertaken under the auspices of the Wild Coast
Conservation and Sustainable Development Project for a detailed description and strategic
assessment of the receiving environment of the Wild Coast in terms of various other land use
options (such as agriculture and forestry, tourism, mining, etc.) proposed for the area.
E
4.1.8.3
I am concerned that due process has not been professionally followed and that development is
taking place ahead of adequate preparation, consultation and planning.
The current EIA has been undertaken in terms of applicable environmental legislation and
regulations (refer to Chapter 2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR). Refer also to relevant responses
provided above.
E
4.1.8.4
The Project doesn’t take account of other relevant policies and plans
The draft EIAR fails to take account of other relevant government policies and to highlight the extent
to which the proposed Project is inconsistent with other policy instruments. These include the
National Framework on Sustainable Development (“NFSD”), the Wild Coast Conservation and
Sustainable Development Plan (“WCCSDP”) and the Wild Coast Spatial Development Initiative
(“Wild Coast SDI”). The fact that the Project is being considered in isolation rather than in the
context of other integrated development initiatives and strategies and without first developing a
strategic regional development plan makes it inevitable that the EIAR will fail to capture and
evaluate many relevant considerations and implication of building the proposed toll road. Indeed, it
is likely that if any strategic development plan for the region were developed, it would conclude that
it was inappropriate to construct a high speed, limited access, toll road through the area, either at all
or on the proposed route. Even if such a plan were to be developed after the approval of the
Project, it would not be able to mitigate the adverse impact of an incorrectly sited and unjustifiable
toll road.
As mentioned in Section 3.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Wild Coast region has been
identified as an area for strategic economic development in accordance with Government’s Spatial
Development Initiative (SDI) Strategy. The Wild Coast SDI identified the provision of a major road,
such as the proposed toll road, as an important catalyst for achievement of its objectives since it
would enhance access to the region and would facilitate development of the eco-tourism potential
area of the area. Other relevant planning documents which make reference to the proposed
project include, amongst others, the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of certain municipalities
and the Eastern Cape Strategic Growth and Development Plan.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Also, the Final EIR (Section 15.3 of Volume 1) provides a consolidated evaluation of the
compatibility of the proposed toll highway (in particular the greenfields sections) with relevant
Eastern Cape regional and strategic planning initiatives.
The Final EIR (Section 15.3 of Volume 1) provides a consolidated evaluation of the compatibility of
the proposed toll highway (in particular the greenfields sections) with relevant Eastern Cape
regional and strategic planning initiatives.
148
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
4.2
4.2.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Link to mining and other developments:
If the need for the road is linked to mining then the mining development must be considered in
the EIA
In light of the Independent Review, I&APs must assume that other reasons must exist, such
as the possibility of mining, which require such a road – if this is indeed so, then these
developments need to be fully considered in the EIA. Are the mining proponents the real
promoters of the road?; have the mining impacts been studied? The SEA would have to be
part of this EIA according to NEMA and that would have to address the mining issue. If
mining does go ahead it’s going to impact on the road significantly and will lead to more
maintenance having to be done – doesn’t seem like this has been thought through properly.
When
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, SANRAL has emphasised that the proposed toll highway is in no
way linked to, or dependent on, the proposed mining.
S
Noted. An SEA of the Wild Coast (January 2006) has been undertaken.
4.2.2
Undisclosed link to mining and other developments
Seems apparent that the proposed N2 will serve the needs of the contentious possible
Xolobeni titanium mining operation or to encourage use of the Coega harbour. Not much said
by SANRAL and their role in the mining issue; SANRAL may need to assist to make the
mining easier by providing the road network for mining – there may even be some “deal” with
SANRAL that will ensure that they get some of the profits from the mining enterprise to
finance their proposed new N2. What are the plans for mining activities? There’s a mining
company that’s behind this whole thing – the road is being built to allow the mining company
to take their product to Richards Bay – and residents will be footing the bill for this. Why must
’Toti people pay for a road that an Australian mining company requires to mess up a pristine
part of our natural heritage. Is the plan to convey an Australian mining company’s ore to
Durban harbour? – if so, additional traffic will be added to the already congested N2. Is it true
that a mine is going to be developed in the Wild Coast area and if so, can’t they pay for the
road? SANRAL has made some mention of this being linked to bailing out the Coega
development.
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, SANRAL has emphasised that the proposed toll highway is in no
way linked to, or dependent on, the proposed mining.
S
E
4.2.3
Mining at Xolobeni
What was happening about the Xolobeni mining project? The road would bring access to
mining. Would the mining project make use of the toll road? – would the road be designed to
carry heavy mining trucks? Was there any relationship between the proposed toll highway
and the proposed mining in Xolobeni? The mining EIA raises the question of the motivation
for the road – there is a lack of an integrated plan for the area. Surely the road would make
mining more feasible and then the mining could go ahead before the area can be claimed for
sustainable development.
An SEA of the Wild Coast (January 2006) has been undertaken. As mentioned in Section 6.5.1,
SANRAL has emphasised that the proposed toll highway is in no way linked to, or dependent on,
the proposed mining.
S
Noted.
E
4.2.3.1
The Mining of the Xolobeni coastal dunes by an Australian consortium would be facilitated by the
building of the proposed N2 coastal road along the Pondoland coast. The local community, who are
affected by the threat of mining, are currently appealing to the Constitutional Court against the
mining which would destroy their traditional, self-sufficient way of life as well as opportunities for
eco-tourism. The threat of mining has already disrupted local eco-tourist activities such as horseriding trails. Dune mining might create a few temporary jobs at best, but the local people would be
forced off their land and it is likely to attract job-seekers from outside, resulting in increased
unemployment and crime. Mining would pollute the rivers and could possibly affect the supply of fish
in the area. The local people would benefit far more from well organised eco-tourism.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
149
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
4.3
4.3.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Impact of new developments on the toll road in KZN
As the Arbour Town Development at Umbogintwini will now proceed, it will surely influence
the toll road.
4.3.2
4.4
4.4.1
Response
Housing and other new developments:
Impact of new developments on R102
Has the imminent increase of traffic on the R102 as a result of an increase in the construction
of residential developments been taken into account?; the accumulative impact of
development along this route south of eThekwini should be fully investigated. Total lack of
investigation in the Amanzimtoti area [examples of businesses and proposed developments
provided].
•
Creation of Wild Coast National Park:
Areas for protection
Should the Mzamba Coastal Route be followed, the entire area seaward of the road should be
declared a protected area. A vision which extends rather than diminishes the integrity of the
Mkambati Reserve is lacking.
When
The traffic specialist study has investigated and assessed relevant concerns during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
Noted. Refer to Section 14.4. of the Final EIR.
S
Noted.
S
4.4.2
Conflict with the proposed Wild Coast National Park
The route and its alignment may conflict with the proposed national park – all other plans by
DEAT and the provincial authorities should be considered to minimise or avoid potential
conflicts. Opposed to any new construction taking place in environmentally sensitive areas
such as the Pondoland Centre of Endemism. Alignment of the road needs to take into
cognisance the proposed National Park. Wanted a road and not a zoo. If the road is built the
opportunity to establish the National park could be lost – can the road not be built around that
area to leave a future for the park? Will SANRAL be bringing wild animals? – don’t want wild
animals in the area. How does this affect the proposed Pondoland National Park?
The EIA process to date has included consultation with SANParks, tasked with the establishment
and management of the proposed Wild Coast National Park. The compatibility of the proposed
project with these and other planning initiatives was evaluated, as appropriate, during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process.
S
4.4.3
SANRAL support for Park
If SANRAL were to put their support behind the establishment of the Park and the road were
designed to be more sympathetic to current centres of biodiversity, then it is believed that a
win-win scenario could be found for the environment and development.
Noted. Refer further to Section 5.2.5.2 of the FSR.
S
4.4.4
Pondoland conservation areas must be given protected status before toll road can go ahead
WESSA has a particular interest in this project as its implementation would impact on an
outstandingly beautiful and biologically important part of South Africa. For many years WESSA has
campaigned for the proper conservation of this unique and irreplaceable natural asset of our
Country. At the outset we believe that unless the areas of the Pondoland Coast that have been
identified for conservation status and management are not given this status before the proposed
road is constructed, serious and irreversible damage will be done to this unique area. In many ways
it would be better for the proposed road to be incorporated within the proposed conservation area as
proper controls can then be implemented. From past experience, we know that whenever a new
road is constructed through a remote and sensitive area, considerable undesirable development
follows along the route of the road. Settlements, transformation of the land, pollution, and removal
of rare and threatened plants and animals become the order of the day and the beauty and
Noted. These issues are addressed in the vegetation and flora specialist report (refer to Volume 2,
Appendix 1 of the Draft/Final EIR) and Section 14.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, as
appropriate. To illustrate the point, Section 14.1 of the Final EIR, in evaluating the ecological
sustainability of the proposed project, includes the following statement: “…if potential secondary
and/or cumulative impacts can be controlled and conservation measures can be put in place to
effectively protect core components of the PCE then the assessment of five of these criteria may be
reversed/become insignificant and the proposed new road could then be considered to be
ecologically sustainable.”
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
150
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
4.5
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
ecological integrity of the area suffers as a direct result. This point is raised in the draft EIR and we
strongly support the finding. Without the prior implementation of this conservation strategy the road
itself will not be economically, ecologically or socially sustainable. Many of the mitigations are
based on an assumption that the conservation area is a given. To date anything remotely
resembling an area that is given high conservation status in terms of national resource allocation
remains nothing more than a far- sighted dream. Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how
the concept of a ‘Pondoland Park’ can be named as a tool for mitigations of negative impacts. A
positive outcome for mitigations of negative impacts is overly optimistic, given the conditions in the
region.
•
Ribbon development:
New settlements will develop around the road in the greenfields area – settlements will ruin
the tourism potential, increase pollution and put pressure on the forests for firewood and
building materials. Are there concrete plans in place to constrain ribbon development? Land
use plan would need to be developed for the area to prevent the influx of people. It all stands
to be lost – people will go to live by the road – the EIA brief is not to look at secondary impacts
– these are the biggest impacts. Critical to highlight uncontrolled development moving
towards the road creating influx of settlements along the road. There will be ribbon
development alongside the new sections of road.
Response
When
The potential extent of, and potential impacts associated with, ribbon development associated with
the proposed project were addressed as one of the key indirect/secondary impacts investigated
and assessed during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process.
S
E
4.5.1
(Refer Item 3.1 Broad Description of Proposed Project) "The proposed route alignment... would be
approximately 75 km shorter than the existing N2 route between East London and Durban via Mount
Frere, Kokstad and Harding." However, these towns would be bypassed in favour of the new N2 and
result in a huge translocation of people from the old road to the new road, inevitably causing social
unrest. (Refer Item 6.4.7 Tourism) "It is considered that tourism promotion along the existing N2
could change the potential negative impact to neutral status". Queen Sigcau of Pondoland, (in a
previous year's interview with the Weekend Argus) referring to the possible fate of these towns due
to the proposed construction of the coastal N2 toll road, was quoted as saying that: "These areas will
be by-passed and may die because everyone will want to be next to the new national road. We are
already hearing stories about people grabbing land by force to be close to the new road - yet the road
from Holy Cross mission hospital to Lusikisiki is falling apart."
The potential impacts on bypassed towns along the existing N2 and R61 were adequately
investigated and assessed as part of the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to, for
example, the tourism and economic specialist reports in Volume 3, Appendix 6 and Volume 4,
Appendix 13, respectively). These issues are also addressed in Sections 15.1 and 15.2, Volume 1
of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
4.5.2
I am deeply concerned that the "improved opportunities for SMMEs" may be inappropriate on the
proposed greenfields sections. The concept is laudable, but must be managed. The potential for
unplanned ribbon development, both informal and formal is considerable, and it would be far better if the
route focussed on the already existing economic nodes. Because this potential is unplanned this report
can only assess it superficially and conceptually, but its potential for negative environmental impacts is
considerable. As a result the greenfield sections of the road must be sited with full emphasis on the
precautionary approach to planning. It appears that SANRAL have only accepted this in so far as they
have been forced to by I&APs. Such an attitude is regrettable.
It should be noted that the social specialist report indicates that the proposed project would result in
a positive impact of low significance in terms of increased SMME opportunities along the various
sections of the route. With effective implementation of optimisation measures, this potential impact
could be improved to POSITIVE MEDIUM-HIGH significance.
E
4.6
•
Capacity of authorities:
The Draft EMP is inadequate and assumes compliance in an area devoid of the necessary
capacity to enforce it. Land grabbing in the coastal area is not being controlled at all - benefits
are currently going to the tourists, not local communities – need to look at capital flow – in fact
the capital is probably flowing out of the area. Not sure whether the Eastern Cape
government had the ability to monitor the environment.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer also to responses in this regard provided above and in Table 1, as appropriate.
It should be noted that responsibility for implementation of the EMP would rest with the
Concessionaire, should the proposed project be implemented. The Concessionaire would need to
appoint dedicated environmental staff to ensure compliance with the requirements of the EMP and
any other applicable conditions.
151
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
4.6.1
Planning Development (Refer 6.6.14 e) "Ribbon development should be curtailed by way of pro-active
and structured development planning following proper planning principles". The question is who would
do this and who would enforce it? So many coastal areas in the world have been spoiled by ribbon
development along highways. Commercial tourism is likely to replace eco-tourism unless there is
careful planning and strict monitoring of development.
Section 16.7.5 (Table 16.16) of the Final EIR provides a summary of key mitigation measures, with
identification of responsible parties and additional resources required, where appropriate.
E
4.6.2
There are no concrete or detailed plans which indicate how local and regional authorities are going
to be ‘empowered’ to deal with, or given the means, to deal with the consequences of controlling
mitigating effects.
Section 16.7.5 (Table 16.16) of the Final EIR provides a summary of key mitigation measures, with
identification of responsible parties and additional resources required, where appropriate.
E
4.6.3
Mitigations of negative impacts are not based in the realism of practical implementable plans and
policy application given local conditions, but on assumptions that local authorities and regional
government has the capacity and will to police and control any negative consequences that might
arise as a consequences of the road e.g. ribbon development, pollution, unsustainable resources
use. WESSA is concerned that local and regional government does not have the capacity or the
skills to effectively control negative impacts that might arise from secondary impacts and thus be
effective agents for mitigation control. In this sense many mitigations give the appearance of
passing the buck by SANRAL. That is, the EIA acknowledges that the proposed route road will have
undesirable negative impacts, but transfers the responsibility of dealing with these onto local
authorities who are already hard pressed to deal with regional social and environmental problems.
This is incorrect. In terms of the potential botanical impacts associated with strip/ribbon/secondary
development in the section of the proposed route between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River, for
example, the vegetation and flora specialist report and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR assess the
potential indirect and cumulative impacts to be of HIGH significance without and with mitigation,
since it is considered unlikely that the impact can be effectively mitigated. Section 16.7.5 (Table
16.16) of Volume 1 of the Final EIR provides a summary of key mitigation measures, with
identification of responsible parties and additional resources required, where appropriate.
E
4.7
•
Protected areas:
DEAT and DWAF should have a plan in place as to how to conserve important sites outside
the formal protected area.
Noted.
S
•
Impact on where people choose to live:
Tolling of the Upper South Coast will inevitably force more people, especially the poor, to
move beyond Isipingo to the city, thereby defeating the municipal intention of moving people
out to the suburbs.
Noted. Certain potential toll funding-related aspects have been addressed as part of the social,
traffic, planning/development and economic specialist studies undertaken as part of the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 5 and Volume 4, Appendices
11, 12 and 13) and Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
S
4.8
Also, as stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA project
team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and
the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been indicated that to deal
with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the procedure for
the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in accordance therewith.
4.9
4.9.1
•
4.9.1.1
I see you now plan to toll at Moss Kolnik and Adams rd this will lead to fragmentation of our
community.
Barrier effect of proposed toll road:
Barrier effect of proposed toll road in KZN Upper South Coast
Additional barriers such as toll plazas in the Upper South Coast will have an even larger
negative influence on the town planning of the area.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. Refer to response provided above.
S
Noted. Refer to response to Item 4.8 above.
E
152
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
4.10
4.10.1
•
4.10.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Jurisdiction over national roads:
Jurisdiction over N2 within eThekwini municipal area
A primary network of roads should never traverse a City or Metropolitan area and should
terminate at the boundaries. eThekwini Transport Authority’s transport plans do not include
toll roads [proof provided]. SANRAL should have handed the N3 and N2 within the Metro
boundaries to the City a long time ago.
When
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa. Available
road planning documents have, as far as possible, been taken into account in the planning of the
proposed project. Refer further to rationale for tolling at a national level in Section 3.2 of the
DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
S
If eThekwini had the full say over all the roads in the Metropolitan area as they should have, they
would have insisted that the Developers of Arbour Town would have to pay the cost of widening the
road from Winklespruit to Moss Kolnik because the shopping centre would be the main beneficiaries
and also the cause of increased traffic on the road.
Noted.
E
4.10.1.2
There is a totally independent “Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa” compiled
by the CSIR and other independent bodies and submitted to the National Department of Transport
during November 2002. Why has no cognizance been taken of this study? We accept that the
Minister of Transport has failed to use this study that he commissioned and wrongly has passed on
to much authority and responsibility to SANRAL. It is time that the ownership and administrative
responsibility be placed in the competent and independent hands of a powerful co-coordinating body
as proposed in the Framework. See page 60 paragraph 3.8, which also states that “There is a
strong case, for example, from the efficiency point of view, for all roads within a metropolitan area to
be planned and operated through the metropolitan authority (Metropolitan Transport Authority)
regardless of whether they are Class 1 or Class 3 roads.”
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa. These
tasks are undertaken with due involvement of other government sectors, as required.
E
4.10.1.3
I strongly suggest that the proposed Toll Plazas within the Ethekwini Municipal Area be scrapped
and that any improvements to the roads required over time be funded by Government in conjunction
with Ethekwini Municipality who should take responsibility for this section of the road. Alternate
routes need to be planned to reduce congestion at the N3 and N2 interchange.
Noted. Refer also to relevant responses in Tables 1 and 9 in this regard.
E
4.10.1.4
SANRAL’s unconstitutional say over Class 1 Roads (major connecting roads) within large
Metropolitan areas such as eThekwini is severely questioned by “the preferred model” as thoroughly
discussed in a draft document by the CSIR which was commissioned by the Minister Of Transport
during 2002. The document is titled “A Strategic Framework for the Road Infrastructure in South
Africa”
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa. These
tasks are undertaken with due involvement of other government sectors, as required.
E
4.11
4.11.1
•
Noted. As stated in Section 2.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, “DEAT has advised the EIA
project team that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA
Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority” (the Minister). It has been
indicated that to deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful
as the procedure for the declaration of a toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed
by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998) and must take place in
accordance therewith.
S
Impact on other proposed developments
Impact on Durban Airport Site
A tollplaza will negatively impact on ACSA’s development plans and will also adversely affect
the value of land holdings, in particular the strategic Eastern Precinct project; the toll plaza
could also negatively impact on possible alternative land use options and hence the eventual
value for the current airport land.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
153
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 5:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to the motivation / need for the project, with responses from the EIA
project team and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
5.1
5.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Motivation for the project:
Inadequate motivation of the need for a “high-speed through-route” or tolled road
Proposed road would not address the requirements for improved infrastructure, which are for
upgraded and improved local road networks and possibly rail alternatives, and not for a “highspeed through-route” not serving local needs; the onus falls on the proponent to provide a
sound, substantiated argument that the toll road meets an established need identified against a
strategic regional background – the rationale in the DSR does not appear to come close to
meeting these criteria. Discussions with the Department of Transport indicate that there is little
freight traffic between East London and Durban and the need for a freight corridor is not a
requirement in the area. Clarify and substantiate whether the SDI has identified a need for an
improved road infrastructure in the region generally or does it refer specifically to the proposed
project. Motivation that the project would address poverty in the former Transkei area needs to
be substantiated. Need for the road not adequately addressed – could be of benefit to traffic
passing through the Transkei but would bring little or no benefit to the impoverished
communities in the Transkei – a toll road would result in considerable hardship on these
communities. Project falls within the category of “putting the cart before the horse” – the need
to find justification for the road came after the decision to build a toll road along the preferred
route. There is no proven justifiable reason to take the toll road through the PCE, nor is there
any proven need for a toll road. The building of a toll road to speed up the tourism drive does
not provide the urgent needs of the local residents. Question whether people were adequately
consulted and offered facilities that the people require [examples provided] – request that this
forms a major component of the EIA. The DSR failed to show how the SANRAL preferred
route will bring economic upliftment to this section of the Eastern Cape – upgrading the R61
would create more sustained employment opportunities and less ecological damage. Largest
source of tourists are from Gauteng who will continue to use the N3 to Pietermaritzburg then
follow the R56 and old N2 route rather than travel much further and pay a considerable amount
more in toll fees to access the Wild Coast via Durban and the new N2 route. Sweeping
statements made with no empirical evidence. Proven benefits of the toll road to the local
communities need to be seen. The proposed road will have few, if any benefits for the ordinary
rural people of the area it traverses, or for those further inland – it will also have no benefits for
the environment and/or conservation as it will cut through the most sensitive parts of the PCE.
The proposal is as a result of an unsolicited bid – there is no evidence of any steps being taken
to justify it in the broader policy and strategic vision of SANRAL, and in the national interest.
Need to encourage people to stop in towns, not simply pass through – people sell their goods
on the side of the road but it is illegal to stop and buy. No rationale to prove that the road is
needed – it is contested and still contestable. Road from East London to Mthatha has been
made wider so what is the big deal? [motivation provided]. Better roads needed in
communities. Safety improvements apply to any road and tolling should not be justified by
safety improvements.
Statement that road infrastructure is a necessity for economic
development questionable since the N2 currently goes through Butterworth and there was no
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
It is unclear what the basis is for the conclusion that a national road is not required or that
infrastructure needs can be met by improving local roads “and possibly rail alternatives.”
Regarding the view that the rationale for the proposed activity does not come close to
substantiating the need for the project, this is contradicted elsewhere where it is stated that “Much
space is already devoted in the DSR (and public meetings to date) to describing supposed
‘benefits’ of the project.” It is these very potential “benefits” which provide the rationale for the
project (refer to Section 3.3 of the FSR). The potential negative and positive impacts of the
proposed project were investigated and assessed in detail during the Impact Assessment phase of
the EIA process (refer to Parts C, D and E, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
Although there may also be a need for local roads and better railways the main object of SANRAL,
as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction,
operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It is misleading
to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region because railway or
local roads can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa
are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that
the network is developed appropriately.
According to SANRAL, ensuring the proper extension of the national road network need not be to
the exclusion of other infrastructure development projects. Provincial Government and local
authorities, for example, certainly have an obligation to ensure the upgrading of the existing local
road network.
The Wild Coast SDI identified the provision of a major road between Port Edward and Port St
Johns as an important catalyst in the region. It was envisaged, as outlined in a call for
“expressions of interest” in 1997, that the major road would be a “new toll road”.
SANRAL has indicated that it is unclear who in particular at the Department of Transport the
mentioned discussions were held with, what the basis for the submission made was or what the
context of the statement was. It is considered that the statement “the need for a freight corridor is
not a requirement in this area” would not undermine the need for the proposed project as the
provision of a freight corridor is not the sole purpose of a national road.
SANRAL is obliged to provide a safe national road network as far as that is possible.
154
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
economic development there. Given that oil is running out or getting very expensive, unless
there is an alternative source of fuel there may not be a requirement for a road in 30 years’
time. No rationale to prove that the road is needed – it is contested and is still contestable.
Current road never maintained by SANRAL – by allowing it to collapse they are justifying the
highway. DSR doesn’t show how it will benefit the people. What key assumption is informing
the justification for the road? If the department of health could provide clinics at more strategic
points we wouldn’t need this road – need to see the bigger picture. There is a perfectly good
and acceptable road to East London via Port Shepstone, Kokstad, etc. There is nothing
wrong with the road between Port Shepstone and Durban. Is the road linked to anything else?
– need to see the bigger picture.
5.1.1.1
5.1.1.2
Although the new EIA process professes to give an independent assessment of the merits of the
proposal it is still saddled with dealing with the problems of an extensive infrastructure proposal, with
far reaching and long term consequences for future national and regional development, that was
developed as an isolated and unsolicited bid by a consortium of private bidding companies whose
primary motivation was profit, rather than arising out of an integrated and comprehensive regional
development plan. The underlying justifications and motivations for the N2 Toll road are therefore
still highly clouded by the originating controversies that gave rise to the 2004 EIA Appeal Review.
There is still no adequate justification for a tolled highway that alternatives would not meet,
particularly in its routing through the ‘Greenfields’ section of the Pondoland Centre of Plant
Endemism. Justification for the route is derived primarily from the route being convenient from a
road engineering point of view, which perspective sublimates broader social development and
ecological considerations to secondary status. Upgrading existing routes or routing the N2 out of the
PCE will still provide the same regional socio -economic benefits without the accompanying risk of
environmental degradation to the PCE which the proposed route risks.
The proposed route through the Greenfields section does not serve the most densely settled areas
of this region, therefore how is it going to improve access for the majority of local populations unless
the regional road network as a whole is improve? If the regional road network is improved, is there
still adequate justification for a tolled national highway? It is questionable whether the N2, or a tolled
route, is the most suitable infrastructure to provide needed improved access to isolated
communities. Justifying a tolled highway on the basis of better access, without a preliminary
investigation into what sort of access would bring most benefits and be most suitable for the social
and ecological conditions of the area, borders on propagandizing and a case of ‘putting the cart
before the horse’. Surely the route of the road should be dependent upon the outcomes of social
development policies rather than the other way round?
These opinions are noted. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses
provided to Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
It is questionable whether the N2, or a tolled route, is the most suitable infrastructure to provide
needed improved access to isolated communities. Social development policies should be
implemented first to see where the most benefit could be derived from a new highway. We don’t
need a White Elephant in Pondoland.
Refer to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses provided to Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4
in Table 1.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Eastern Cape Government’s
Strategy Framework for Growth and Development 2004-2014 states that “road access to resorts
needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a
programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’ – an all-weather lowimpact link road to the coastal resorts”.
E
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Eastern Cape Government’s
Strategy Framework for Growth and Development 2004-2014 states that “road access to resorts
needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a
programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’ – an all-weather lowimpact link road to the coastal resorts”.
155
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
5.1.1.3
The new road construction possibly represents the highest proportion of overall costs in the project,
owing in part, to the bridge construction requirements (9 river crossings). Can this be justified on the
thinly argued grounds of increased tourism access (which itself has not been adequately quantified
and projected in the report) and socio-economic development? Again a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis which scrutinizes the environmental and social impacts in this specific area is required,
particularly given that this is a biodiversity hotspot; and that many of the tourism developments
(Pondoland park etc), have yet to be realized. At this stage then, the rationale for the new road is
pure conjecture and is not adequate to justify a new road.
SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed toll highway is provided in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR. Parts C, D and E, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR provides a comprehensive
assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts which would result from the proposed
project.
E
5.1.1.4
Although the new EIR process purports to give an independent assessment of the merits of the
proposal it is clear that the process is still saddled with dealing with the problems of an extensive
infrastructure proposal, with far reaching and long term consequences for future national and
regional development, that was developed and promulgated in a manner that was anything but
objective and independent. Namely, the SANRAL preferred route was developed as an isolated and
unsolicited bid by a consortium of private bidding companies whose primary motivation was profit,
rather than arising out of an integrated and comprehensive regional development plan. Given that
there is very little change between the 2003 infrastructure proposal and the 2008 proposal, with
route considerations and proposed alternatives in 2008 being considered in the same narrow
‘alternative routes’ scenario of 2003, which only considered alternatives for a Toll road within a
narrow geographical band, and which did not consider alternative transport scenario’s, and given
that this proposal still exists independent of any integrated regional development plan, SWC are of
the opinion that the underlying justifications and motivations for the N2 Toll road are still highly
clouded by the originating controversies that gave rise to the 2004 Appeal Review. In commenting
on this new EIA process, SWC is of the opinion that many of the concerns raised by the public in
2003, and by the 2004 legal Appeal Review, have still not been addressed or overcome by the new
EIA process, primarily because the motivation for a toll road, and the SANRAL preferred route,
originated out of an isolated and unsolicited business proposition whose driving motivation is private
profit out of construction and tolling, rather than out of a holistic regional development plan geared
towards meeting real local social and economic development needs.
These opinions are noted. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses
provided to Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
E
There is still no adequate justification for a tolled highway that other alternatives would not meet,
particularly in its routing through the ‘Greenfields’ section of the Pondoland Centre of Plant
Endemism. Justification for the route is derived from the proposed route being convenient from a
road engineering point of view, but this ignores broader social development and ecological
considerations. Upgrading existing routes or routing the N2 out of the PCE will still provide the same
regional socio -economic benefits without the accompanying risk of environmental degradation to
the PCE which the proposed route risks. The proposed route through the Greenfields section does
not serve the most densely settled areas of this region, therefore how is it going to improve access
for the majority of local populations unless the regional road network as a whole is improve? If the
regional road network is improved, is there still adequate justification for a tolled national highway? It
is questionable whether the N2, or a tolled route, is the most suitable infrastructure to provide
needed improved access to isolated communities. Justifying a tolled highway on the basis of better
access, without a preliminary investigation into what sort of access would bring most benefits and be
most suitable for the social and ecological conditions of the area, borders on propagandizing and a
case of ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Surely the route of the road should be dependent upon
the outcomes of social development policies rather than the other way round?
SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed toll highway is provided in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses provided to
Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
5.1.1.5
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to the Eastern Cape Government’s Strategy Framework for Growth and Development
2004-2014, “road access to resorts needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link
the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild
Coast Meander’ – an all-weather low-impact link road to the coastal resorts”.
E
According to the Eastern Cape Government’s Strategy Framework for Growth and Development
2004-2014, “road access to resorts needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link
the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild
Coast Meander’ – an all-weather low-impact link road to the coastal resorts”.
156
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
5.1.1.6
To presume that the provision of infrastructure alone will reduce poverty, especially infrastructure
such as that of the proposed Toll road, without investigating the underlying causes of poverty, is
presumptuous.
SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed toll highway is provided in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses provided to
Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
E
5.1.1.7
An overall strategy looking at the needs of both people and environment, tied to an improvement in
the functional capacity of local and regional government, together with short, medium and long term
planning for the area, would appear to be of far greater priority.
Noted.
E
5.1.1.8
You make remarks that the N2 and R61 “tend to follow watershed alignments” yet your proposal will
not deviate from them except for the two short new stretches, 96kms.
You mention that Mount Frere (N2) and Flagstaff (R61) are 100 and 60 kms inland, yet you still
intend going thru Mthatha which is 90 kms inland. Why, I don’t know.
Why are you proposing still going through the towns, Lusikisiki, Mthatha, Idutywa and Butterworth?
Highways don’t go through towns…..
You seem to concentrate on the Wild Coast north of Port St Johns (Ref 3.3.1) and state that access
to the coast is poor, where it exists at all, and access parallel to the coast is non-existent, and, as
you state in many cases, it is only possible to drive between certain locations along the coast by first
returning to the R61. To my knowledge, there is only one location that can be accessed in a normal
car, and that is Mbotyi. The other, at Mkambati, requires a 4x4.
The impetus to improve the roads has already taken place, e.g. Kei river cuttings, first the southern
side some 12 years ago and more recently the northern side. Numerous passing lanes on both the
R61and N2. The tarring of the R61 from the Ntafufu to Umzimbuvu, widening of bridges on the N2
Mnt Ayliff/Mnt Frere areas. Need I go on?
Also I understand that a contract to upgrade the R61 Mthatha to Queenstown had been awarded to
a local contractor.
Why the new section from Ntafufu bridge? This will only save about 10/15 minutes, and in my
opinion will be extremely detrimental to Port St Johns. Places like that need tourism, even visitors for
tea or lunch. As it is, there is only one decent clean fillingstation/eating facility between Port Edward
and the Kei Bridge.
You repeatedly state that the highway will provide improved road user safety. That’s laughable. I
don’t agree with these statements as the major safety factor is whether all road users obey road
regulations at all times. i.e. speed, crossing over solid white lines, etc. I feel that drivers in the wild
coast are the worst in South Africa and have no regard for the law at all. As for your statements that
speeds of 120km will be possible, I doubt that. There will always be cattle, goats, donkeys, sheep
and schoolchildren on the roads. I know you will erect fences, but they will not last long. You cannot
keep the people or their livestock away from their water supplies .i.e. the rivers. Also the grazing;
different areas depending on the season. Number one rule if you drive through the former Transkei:
only drive during the day and don’t drive at night. Also drive slower than the speed signs state and
beware at every corner because you never know what fool will be coming round the bend on the
wrong side of the road.
While I agree that the roads can be upgraded, mostly more passing lanes, but in order to improve
the standard of living of the locals, what is needed (and you have been completely quiet about the
wild coast south of Port St Johns) is a new road parallel to the coast from PSJ to the Kei. This to be
10km or so inland, and tarred roads to the existing resorts of which there are too many to mention,
These opinions are noted. Refer further to Section 10.1.1.5(k) of the FSR regarding bypasses to
“towns”. Also, please be advised that the economic specialist report (refer to Volume 4, Appendix
13) and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR (refer to Section 15.2) indicate that the proposed toll
highway would result in a potential increase in the Gross Regional Product (potential positive
impact on the local economies) of towns such as Lusikisiki and Port St Johns.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Eastern Cape Government’s
Strategy Framework for Growth and Development 2004-2014 states that “road access to resorts
needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a
programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’ – an all-weather lowimpact link road to the coastal resorts”.
157
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
and to new resorts, which could then be developed. This road should also have connections to the
N2, via the towns such as Kentani, Willowvale, Elliotdale, Mcanduli, etc. Now that I am on this topic,
please visit the Umngazi River Bungalows and find out how many locals work there and how many
of their families derive a much higher standard of living as a result. Please listen to me and not to
the private consortium which appears to be driving this proposal. The lower coast has 20 times the
resorts than the north and yet most of them can only be safely reached from the N2 if you have a
4x4.
5.1.1.9
It is time that the DEAT put an end to this waste of taxpayers money and prevailed upon the Dept of
Transport to work with the EC provincial government to develop a suitable transport infrastructure
plan for the province as a whole, as part of South Africa’s ‘developmental state’ strategic planning.
Unsolicited, piecemeal, ad hoc business venture projects which are proposed in a strategic vacuum
(please see Dept of Transport strategic corridors detail provided in attached comment on FSR) have
no place in South Africa today.
5.1.1.10
The proposed route through the Greenfields section does not serve the most densely settled areas
of this region, therefore how is it going to improve access for the majority of local populations unless
the regional road network as a whole is improved? If the regional road network is improved, is there
still adequate justification for a tolled national highway? It is questionable whether the N2, or a tolled
route, is the most suitable infrastructure to provide needed improved access to isolated
communities. Justifying a tolled highway on the basis of better access, without a preliminary
investigation into what sort of access would bring most benefits and be most suitable for the social
and ecological conditions of the area, seems a back to front way of doing things. Surely the route of
the road should be dependent upon the outcomes of social development policies, rather than the
other way round?
5.1.2
Undisclosed motivation for the project
Obvious that inadequate numbers of vehicles will use the proposed toll road to make it
financially viable unless some cargo is diverted from existing means of transport to road
conveyance, such as the diversion of rail/sea cargo to the proposed road [motivation
provided]; it also appears that the proposed road may even become a major cargo carrying
route between Gauteng and the other provinces along the N3 to Durban and connecting from
there onto the proposed toll road – has such a scenario been included in the calculations of
predicted future traffic volumes? Non-disclosure of the ever-present threat of mining on the
coastal dune system, thereby underpinning the need for a new road, places doubt on the
credibility of the Scoping Report. Suspect that there are ulterior motives for developing it into
a lucrative long haul road project once it is built [supporting information provided]; suspect
that vehicle usage will be substantially increased by mining of the coastal sand at Xolobeni
and transport of titanium etc. to East London/Coega or Durban – poaching the coastwise
containers between Cape Town and Richards Bay from ship to road conveyance – convert the
rail conveyance of timber from the Eastern Cape to road conveyance to the paper and
chipping industries in KZN; if assumptions are disputed, categorical assurance requested that
there will be no large scale road conveyance of base minerals, coastwise containers and
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. According to the Eastern Cape Government’s Strategy Framework for Growth and
Development 2004-2014, “road access to resorts needs to be greatly improved. Major
opportunities are to link the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a programme of upgraded rural
access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’ – an all-weather low-impact link road to the coastal
resorts”.
E
E
The main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the
planning, design, construction, operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of
national roads. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a
national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that the network is developed
appropriately.
S
According to SANRAL, possible future developments have been taken into account in the predicted
future traffic volumes along the proposed toll highway.
158
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
timber for the pulp and chipping industries. Tourists come from Gauteng, so the argument for
tourism falls flat – why is SANRAL so adamant that this road goes ahead? Was the toll road
meant to transport animals to the proposed zoo in the region? Toll road basically for the
benefit of the mining consortium and corrupt officials. Whole idea has a political and not
social goal. It is stated in the financial and economic screening report that the R61 is not
being taken forward just because it is 19 km longer - is the road about sustainable economic
growth or is it just a short route? Is it for poverty alleviation? If it’s to transport freight then
that needs to be made clear – there are no off ramps into the community anywhere to create
economic upliftment.
5.1.3
5.1.3.1
5.1.4
S
Inconsistent motivation for the project between different sections of the project
For the southern section specific problems with access from one coastal village to another to
another is mentioned but for the northern section there are no concerns listed for the
bottleneck caused due to poor historical and structural planning of roads, rail, townships,
towns and business centre development. Proposal will not deviate from the “watershed
alignments” except for the two short new stretches. Tourism considered in greenfields section
but not in the Willowvale area.
Table 3.1 of the DSR/FSR highlights current problems along the existing N2 and R61 sections of
the proposed project.
The following reasons are given for locating the proposed N2 Toll Road along the coast between Port
Edward and Port St Johns (FSR Exec Summary §3.3.1): The R61 ... is located up to almost 60 km
inland (at Flagstaff) and is at a height of about 1 000 m at that point. Access to the coast is poor
where it exists at all. Access parallel to the coast is nonexistent because of the deeply incised
gorges and valleys. For example, in many cases it is only possible to drive between certain locations
along the coast by first returning to the R61. This can involve a round trip of about 100 to 120 km,
whereas the locations are often only 20 to 30 km apart. Not surprisingly, this region is one of the most
impoverished areas in South Africa. The proposed project aims to improve access and linkage to the
Wild Coast region while reducing road-user costs and optimising safety and socio-economic benefits.
Inspection of maps of the area reveals that, south of Mthatha, these conditions continue to apply, with the
present N2 now at the inland position instead of the R61. However, instead of continuing along the
coast, the proposed toll road now maintains its inland position, and all that is said for this section is (FSR
Exec Summary §3.3.1): the existing N2 south of Mthatha requires major upgrades to fulfil its function as
a primary national road between economic centres and to cater for rapidly growing traffic volumes.
If indeed it is advantageous to have a toll road next to the coast along the northern section, then what is
so different about the southern section? Do the people there not also deserve to have all the socalled advantages of a coastal toll road? Or is there some other unstated reason for not continuing
along the coast in the southern section?
It is important to note that it would also be much more efficient to have a non-toll road in this
southern section.
As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Eastern Cape Government’s
Strategy Framework for Growth and Development 2004-2014 states that “road access to resorts
needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link the future Wild Coast Toll Road with a
programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’ – an all-weather lowimpact link road to the coastal resorts”.
E
Reasons given as motivation for the road cannot be substantiated
Argument given is unconvincing since the scale of the current demand for easier access to the
Wild Coast region from the R61 and the avoidance of round trips can only be low – there is no
commercial activity at the coast where traffic volumes would inevitably increase – it should be
Refer to Section 6.5.1 of the DSR/FSR for a discussion of relevant Eastern Cape planning and
policy initiatives. The compatibility of the proposed project with relevant regional and local planning
and policy initiatives was investigated and assessed during the Impact Assessment phase of the
EIA process.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to SANRAL, the proposed greenfields routes across the drainage systems, where
currently there are no major crossings, would facilitate the proposed improved road linkage
between East London and Durban, improved linkage between the minor economic hubs between
the two major economic centres, and access to a large area of the Wild Coast region where there
is virtually none.
159
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
indicated whether such a possibility exists in order to extend the scope of the study. Ecotourism to the Wild Coast does not need or want the proposed N2 toll road [motivation
provided]; bring innovative thinking to the proposal in such a way as to benefit the upliftment
of residents of the area, the conservation of the biodiversity of the core area of the PCE and
the creation of a shorter inter-regional road. Show how the project will benefit the people –
claims are not verified or substantiated. Rationale for SDIs come out Asia where they put in
massive infrastructure and economic development followed – there is nothing put forward that
tells us the same will happen in this country – toll road are expensive and access is restricted
– thus not satisfied that there is a need for the road.
Response
When
The potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project were investigated and
assessed in detail during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Parts C, D and
E of Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
5.1.4.1
What is the ultimate purpose of the new route? If it is to provide social development and upliftment
of the local communities I would need to see more detail on this. I maintain that upgrading of the
existing road structure in conjunction with a plan for local development would have a better impact
on the communities who need it.
SANRAL’s motivation for the proposed toll highway is provided in Section 3.3, Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses provided to
Items 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
E
5.1.4.1
I do believe that a person should have a positive attitude towards any developments, but at the
same time it must be an asset and not a liability to the country and the affected people.
Noted. The economic specialist report (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 13) indicates that the
proposed project, given the various assumptions (of which the most critical were those related to
the value of time and the traffic growth rate), would definitely be economically justified, with an
Internal Rate of Return of 15.4 % and Benefit/Coast ration (B/C) of 2.12.
E
5.1.4.2
There is no evidence that the N2 in the Eastern Cape caused regional economic development along
the route in agriculture, forestry (coastal area not suitable), manufacturing, construction, finance and
real estate (mainly communal property), and trade! Why should this happen around a highway which
is not easily accessible?
The economic specialist has indicated that it is hard to imagine what the nature of economic activity
in the vicinity of the present N2 in the Eastern Cape would have been without the presence of the
current N2 route. Also, traffic forecasts show that the proposed toll highway would be accessible.
E
There is a need for the project
Look forward to the building of the proposed toll road [motivation provided]; there will be a few
disadvantages to the proposed toll road – increase in traffic and traffic noise will impact on the
area. People should stop being selfish and allow the toll road to come and improve lives
[motivation provided]. Road must now be implemented as many people are unemployed and
the road will uplift the standard of living in the area. Road would offset the underdevelopment
of the Wild Coast. Councillors and officials in Port St Johns LM support the toll road as they
understand the impact and improvement this road would have on the economy of the area.
Project is importance especially for the poorest in the Port St Johns LM who will benefit in
terms of economic growth; concerned that non-residents will try to dictate the terms of the
project. The community supports the project. The road is needed as the EC province is
known for lack of development. Road will help develop tourism along the coast. The
Xolobeni road is a bad road – cannot get to the Bizana hospital. Toll road will bring jobs and
improve the economy. Taxi industry in Lusikisiki supports the road through Pondoland as
there is no such road at present and it is very difficult to reach the areas where the road is
going. ANC and SACP from the Mbhashe River to the Mthamvuna supported the proposal
before and they were still supporting it because it would bring economic relief to the region.
Communities of Quakeni wanted the project to go ahead. The road should be given priority
compared to the National park and the mining – there is a great need for the road. As
Noted. The potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project were investigated and
assessed in detail during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Parts C, D and
E of Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
5.1.5
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
160
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
farmers there was agreement that the road should go ahead because it would bring
advantages to the area. The road would attract more investors to the Wild Coast area; road
would make it easier to provide social services and property values would even go up. It will
save time and money and might bring jobs. Road will help the national, provincial and local
people communicate more easily; towns next to the toll road will be developed. Hombe
community supports the road and look forward to the road being built. Supports the initiative
as it brings development to the area. It will bring a better life for the local people and job
opportunities and other development in the long term to help the young people – hopes
Lusikisiki area will be developed like other areas such as Port Edward. Supported the road
because it will be easy to travel to KZN. Pondo people wanted the road because it will bring
development to the Pondo people – have struggled to get better roads and infrastructure and
by getting the road the community will benefit. Road is a good idea because the longer way
is more expensive. It’ll be a positive thing because the EC is so beautiful but because of the
bad roads it doesn’t get a lot of exposure. Please provide a new road. The drive between
Southbroom and East London is possibly the worst and most dangerous in South Africa
[motivation provided]; toll roads are an immense benefit; anyone who suggests upgrading the
R61 doesn’t understand. The proposed N2 would improve the technical skills and people will
be able to earn an income afterwards; road would help to identify rare plants.
5.1.5.1
I have read with interest the key sections of the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed N2
toll road. There has clearly been a tremendous amount of intelligent thought and effort applied to
preparing this report. On balance I am very firmly in favour of this project proceeding. It would be
very disappointing if the project did not proceed.
5.1.6
5.1.6.1
There are greater priorities than the toll road
We need a government that is serious about the problems in KwaZulu-Natal and the rest of the
country. The proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway is a clear waste of and disregard for government
spending. We have serious problems in this province and we need a serious government with
competent people to deal with these problems.
5.1.6.2
The prime need in that area (Pondoland) is for improved local access to such things as schools,
primary health clinics, and markets.
5.2
•
Motivation for tolling the existing N2 on the KZN South Coast:
Need for the toll road as proposed in the Park Rynie to Isipingo sections has not been properly
scoped; tolling in this area to fund the entire road does not create a need – it creates a rebuttal
of that need in terms of the burden it will place on employees from a specific income group
having to carry this financial obligation. Is SANRAL suddenly concerned about the traffic
congestion on the N2 between Winklespruit and Isipingo – what about more serious problems
of traffic congestion in other sections of the N2 in eThekwini – they want to steal or extort over
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted.
E
This opinion is noted.
E
Noted. As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the Eastern Cape
Government’s Strategy Framework for Growth and Development 2004-2014 states that “road
access to resorts needs to be greatly improved. Major opportunities are to link the future Wild
Coast Toll Road with a programme of upgraded rural access roads, and the ‘Wild Coast Meander’
– an all-weather low-impact link road to the coastal resorts”.
E
According to SANRAL, the perception that the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal is going to fund the
remainder of the proposed project is incorrect. The proposed toll highway provides for a total of 7
mainline toll plazas and 24 ramp toll plazas, including the existing Oribi mainline plaza. SANRAL
has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking a number of
considerations into account. These include:
S
E
161
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
R3 billion over the next 30 years from people on the Upper South Coast for a R4 billion road
that they will never use on the Wild Coast – this, in nobody’s wildest dreams, can constitute
cross-subsidisation, which is claimed is standard for all taxation. A toll road through KwaZuluNatal should benefit people – however, costs will go up but the direct benefit is minimal.
Would think there are enough toll roads but it just shows hoe persistent the importance of
making the extra buck really is. How much will it cost to upgrade the road between Port
Edward and Durban? – these upgrades will be minor and should not warrant the payment of
toll fees. The R61 and N2 from Port Edward to Durban was paid out of the taxpayer’s pocket
– why must it now be unnecessarily “upgraded” and paid again for the dubious benefit of the
Eastern Cape? [motivation provided]. The private consortium wants to make easy money
from unsuspecting motorists and the poor who could least afford to pay this additional toll – the
motive is financial gain for a privileged few, rather than the provision of development
infrastructure for the surrounding communities.
In favour of additional lanes between
Amanzimtoti and Isipingo and for the road to be tolled.
•
•
•
•
Response
When
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
For instance one cannot levy a toll tariff at the proposed Isipingo toll plaza (urban or commuter
trip) to cater for a trip all the way to Margate, a “rural trip”. Hence rural toll plazas are usually
between 80 to 100 km apart and urban toll plazas less than 20 km apart (5 to 15 km). This
provides a mechanism whereby equitable toll tariffs, commensurate with the trip length, can
be set with the “open toll system” common to South Africa. Closed toll systems are expensive
to implement and operate and are therefore not very common throughout the world.
Electronic toll collection (ETC) may change this in the future.
Toll tariffs are based on the relative benefit that a user would theoretically experience when a
section of toll road is used. This benefit is derived from the difference between road user costs
incurred before (“do nothing”) and after implementation of the toll road. The price elasticity of
toll tariffs is very carefully modelled, as they are sensitive to variation as all commodities (not
utilities) are where the user has a choice. Most utilities (such as water and electricity) are
fixed at prices that are sometimes exorbitant because they usually are monopolies and the
prices tend to be fairly inelastic.
The toll revenue generated at a specific toll plaza may be perceived to “subsidize” other
sections of a toll road because the relative quantum of the particular revenue for the specific
plaza could be disproportionate to actual “toll length” of that particular toll section. This is not
the case because the actual capital and operational expenditure on the toll highway over its
lifespan tend to equalise over all its sections, i.e. where there are higher traffic volumes and
theoretically higher revenue, increased capital and operational expenditure over time will also
be experienced.
SANRAL has indicated that its main object relates to the planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of all national roads.
The potential economic impacts of the proposed project were investigated and assessed during the
Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 13).
According to SANRAL, the proposed upgrading of the N2 between Amanzimtoti and Isipingo is
definitely not considered to be “minor”. SANRAL estimates the cost for upgrading this section at
approximately R400 million to R450 million.
5.2.1
Being a positive thinking person by nature, I have had great difficulty in finding any positive aspects
of the Toll Road proposal. It is unfortunate that so much time and money has been spent on this
proposal which could have been used to improve the current road. It is only common sense for any
person to realize that it is not equitable.
Noted. Refer further to responses to Item 5.1.1 above and relevant responses provided to Items
1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in Table 1.
E
5.2.2
There are a number of insurmountable problems which are currently being swept under the carpet
which make the proposed Upper South Coast area to the Isipingo Interchange infeasible. These
include the impact of traffic diversion and noise on the R102 Kingsway Rd in the Amanzimtoti area
where no alternative routes exist.
These issues have been investigated and assessed as part of the Impact Assessment phase of the
EIA process (refer to noise and traffic and specialist reports in Volume 3, Appendix 8 and Volume
4, Appendix 11, respectively, and Sections 14.4 and 14.5, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
162
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
5.2.3
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Capacity problems during peak periods between Adams Road and Isipingo interchanges. As stated
in my objection to the previous EIA, this capacity "problem" is vastly overstated to create a
"problem" where none exists. Outside of a very short period in the mornings there is absolutely no
problem. However, turning the current N2 between Adams Road and Isipingo interchange will have
significant negative impact on the R102 (kingsway Rd), the road I reside in. Any possible benefit in
travel time on the N2 will be more than negated by the diversion of traffic from the N2 onto
Kingsway. I record my travel time on Kingsway and on the N2 every day. This information was
previously provided to the EIA consultants and can be provided again if required. With it I intend
proving is what I expect to the negative impact of a toll road vs. the existing case should the toll road
go ahead.
Response
Section 3.2 of the traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11) and Section 14.4, Volume 1 of
the Draft/Final EIR provide the current levels of service on the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit for the 30th highest hourly volume of the year.
When
E
The traffic specialist has indicated, insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the
N2 between Prospecton and Hibberdene is concerned, the mitigatory measures proposed, namely
a change of the toll strategy for local users by providing Local User Discounts in order to achieve
equitable toll payments per km of the toll road section used (by means of Electronic Toll Collection)
would be capable of adequately mitigating the potential significant impacts, provided that the toll
tariffs per km were set at the correct levels.
According to the traffic specialist, the above statement can be made with a high degree of
confidence in view of the accuracy achieved in predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of
other South African toll roads with the methodology used in the traffic specialist report. An
appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed, as follows: “... If the project is
implemented by means of a BOT contract, the Independent Engineer should be responsible for the
strict monitoring and review of the performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory
measures ...”
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time should the
proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative impacts could
therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they
occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
5.2.4
I do not believe there is an improvement to road safety as mentioned as an argument in the DEIR,
especially on the section between Port Edward and Amanzimtoti, where many vehicles will start
using alternative roads as has been the case in the Natal Midlands resulting in serious accidents
and road damage.
According to the traffic specialist, the additional capacity provided by an additional lane in each
direction over a section of the N2 in southern eThekwini would increase road safety significantly in
the years to come as it would prevent the development of stop-start traffic conditions on the N2 that
would inevitably occur if no lanes were added.
E
Refer further to response provided above.
5.2.5
Draft EIR 2.2.2 Summary of Key Road Problems: The major problems relate to the southern section
from the Transkei border southwards. The Mthamvuna River to the Isipingo Interchange has few
significant problems. The capacity problem north of Adams Road is of very limited duration, and
much less than that experienced on the main routes into Durban from the north and the west.
Despite congestion on these routes being much worse than that from the south, there are no similar
plans to implement toll roads. Congestion experienced on this stretch could be alleviated by the
effective enforcement of lane restrictions in respect of trucks on Umbogintwini Hill.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Section 3.2 of the traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11) and Section 14.4, Volume 1 of
the Draft/Final EIR provide the current levels of service on the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit for the 30th highest hourly volume of the year.
E
Refer further to response provided above.
163
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
5.2.6
No.
The R61 and then the N2 from Port Edward to Durban is an excellent road, all the way. The Trafalgar
community use this road all the time and apart from the actual approaches to Durban, never find it unduly
pressured - it is finely engineered, safe (at least from a motoring point of view, if not from a security point
of view), and perfectly adequate. The section from Southbroom to Durban is already a toll road, while the
R61 between Southbroom and Port Edward (the stretch of most concern to us) apparently drifts in limbo
as far as the documentation is concerned.
Table 3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR sets out the current problems along the existing N2 and
R61 sections of the proposed toll highway and potential benefits of the proposed project to the road
user. As mentioned in Section 4.2.7, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the section between
Southbroom and Hibberdene comprises the existing N2 South Coast Toll Road. It is also indicated
that proposed construction activities between Southbroom and Port Edward include, amongst
others, construction of the Southbroom and Port Edward interchanges.
E
5.2.7
The report does not demonstrate any need for the proposal in the Durban area. Personal
communication with representatives of the Municipality indicates that there is no need for the proposal
from the Municipality’s perspective, and no need has been established in the report. In fact there is
greater need to upgrade other roads within the metropole such as at the N2 and N3 interchange. The
proposal does not conform to Ethekwini’s Integrated Transport Plan which is the result of detailed
and long term study.
Noted. Table 3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR sets out the current problems along the existing
N2 and R61 sections of the proposed toll highway and potential benefits of the proposed project to
the road user.
E
The intention to toll the Durban South Area as proposed is entirely ill conceived and lacks any
substance. Without any economic or social benefit accruing to the people of the area, and their exits
no evidence to this effect, this proposal is fatally flawed, must be abandoned and should not be
authorised by DEAT as proposed.
These opinions are noted. Part 1 (economic and financial analysis) of the economic specialist
report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) and Section 15.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR concludes,
based on the findings of the economic analysis, that the freeway section between Winklespruit and
the Isipingo Interchange would be economically justified, with an Internal Rate of Return of 37.9 %
and a Benefit/Coast ratio (B/C) of 4.82.
5.2.8
When
Refer further to relevant responses provided above in this regard.
E
SANRAL has reiterated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from each municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended toll road would be
situated, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27
of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This
process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision
were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any
appeals.
5.2.9
5.2.10
It would appear that the proposed upgrade at Isipingo, although certainly justified in itself, is
motivated only to justify including the entire Natal section in the new toll road concept. The failure to
provide details for upgrades to the route through the remainder of Natal, except for the main toll
plazas, is unacceptable. It is concluded that either this report is substantially incomplete, or it cannot
be used to justify the inclusion of the Natal section in the toll road proposal.
In view of the very different situation in Natal to the Wild Coast/Eastern Cape, both in terms of the
receiving environment and in terms of the impacts, it would be appropriate that the N2 in Natal be
considered as a separate project, and excluded from consideration in this process.
Table 4.7, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR sets out the proposed construction activities per road
section between the Mthamvuna River and the Isipingo Interchange.
The second benefit derives from improved transport opportunities. Better roads reduce transport
costs, although significantly this benefit will be largely offset by the toll fees. Furthermore there is a
fallacy that better roads mean faster transport. The speed of vehicles is restricted by speed limits, by
vehicle capability, and by traffic conditions. Unless the section between Port Edward and
Southbroom is upgraded to dual carriageway there will be negligible benefit for this section, and the
Refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) for supporting
data and calculations regarding road user costs along the various road sections of the proposed toll
highway. A summary of the economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus the road
user costs “after”) along the various road sections of the proposed toll highway is shown in
Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
It should be noted that SANRAL’s legal mandate is the financing, planning, design, construction,
operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads, notwithstanding
any provincial boundaries. The proposed project aims to provide a shorter, more cost efficient and
safer road link between the Eastern Cape (and Western Cape) and KwaZulu-Natal. SANRAL
deems this a necessary improvement to the national road network and considers the proposed
project of strategic importance to the region and the country as a whole.
164
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
continuation north of Hibberdene to Amanzimtoti is already adequate. Conversely the currently tolled
section through Port Shepstone suffers delays due to slow moving vehicles. Similar problems are
likely to occur elsewhere on the proposed route. Upgrading the road at Isipingo may have little
benefit unless the dispersion into Durban is also improved. Peak period bottlenecks occur even on
already improved sections. Consequently any justification for tolling the Natal sections of the road is
minimal.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
165
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 6:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to scope of work and construction aspects, with responses from the
EIA project team and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
6.1
6.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Scope of project:
Scope of project is too large
Scope of the project is too big – break the 560 km corridor into smaller segments and rename
them accordingly [suggestions provided]. Project should be split into two sections – EIA and
route through the Eastern Cape and who is going to pay for it. Why can’t the scope of the
project be split into the EC and KZN – why can’t it be two projects because there are different
interests. The project needs to be broken up into sections.
When
Noted. Proposed toll sections are presented in Section 3.5 of the FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final
EIR. As a national agency, SANRAL has indicated its projects often transcend provincial
boundaries.
S
6.1.2
Scope of new sections against upgrading existing roads
Why have SANRAL proposed that new sections of road are built and how have they
determined which sections will be upgraded? This was an existing road and very few
upgrades were proposed – wouldn’t be a two lane divided highway and would still go through
Butterworth, Dutywa and Mthatha so there would be no real time savings – minimum amount
of work was being proposed to maximise profit.
Refer to Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR and the independent
Technical Review report presented in Appendix 17 of the FSR. Also, SANRAL has indicated that
future bypasses were envisaged at Butterworth, Dutywa and Mthatha during the balance of the
concession period (after the Initial Construction Period). It should, however, be noted that in light
of comments received from I&APs and the independent technical reviewer during the Scoping
Study (refer to Appendix 17 of the FSR), SANRAL is currently considering the construction of these
bypasses as part of the Initial Construction Works. The proposed bypasses would be subject to a
separate environmental authorisation process.
S
6.1.3
Insufficient scope
Why is access not provided for Libode to the Kei Cuttings? - why is it critical to go along the
coast in Pondoland but not between Port St Johns and the Kei River?
Refer to Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
S
6.1.4
Scope of work in KZN
Why is the upgrading of the Adams Road Interchange now included as part of the project
when it was previously stated the toll fee would not be used for this - where is the money
suddenly coming from? - whereas in the EC underpasses and overpasses are proposed, in
KZN where something is needed urgently it is declined. What level of work will be done on the
existing road?
Refer to Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
S
The EIA project team is unable to verify the mentioned “statement”. It should be noted that Section
4.2.7 and accompanying diagrams of Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR clearly describe the proposed
construction activities between the Mthamvuna River and Southbroom. Also, Section 2.3, Volume
1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that the proposed consolidation and formalisation of accesses
would be subject to separate environmental authorisation processes, as appropriate.
E
6.1.4.1
WESSA is concerned about a statement made to one of its members at the open day (Wild Coast
Sun) that the section from Southbroom to Umtamvuna is not included in this EIA but will be
upgraded later. This individual inspected the display thoroughly, and information on this sector was
minimal. For example the plans indicate that there will only be access onto the N2 at Port Edward
and Southbroom, so what happens to the places in-between? We need to ask how this key local link
route can be incorporated into the new N2 route without any detailed study - no wetland reports, no
reference to the two nature reserves it will border, no details of social impacts, noise, etc, no
indication of construction requirements, or of alternative routes. It was also noted that there were no
indications as to where the numerous additional ramp plazas are going.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
166
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
6.1.4.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
6.1.5
6.2
6.2.1
Response
When
In discussion with a SANRAL representative it was made clear to me that the Lower South Coast Refer to response provided above.
route is considered to be not negotiable. Furthermore it is reported that this route has already been
gazetted for transfer to SANRAL, prior to the finalisation of the report. The SANRAL representative
implied that it has already been incorporated into the existing toll road. Such arbitrary action is preemptive, unjustified and unacceptable. Requests for details on the upgrading and modifications
planned for this section at the public open day were refused on grounds that they were not available.
However, some of this information is included in the EIA. Apparently the consultants were not aware
of this. Despite this deficiency table 4.7 in the report cites potential benefits to users of this section,
and perhaps because of this the report did not identify any negative impacts. The claim that table 4.7
is a detailed description is ridiculous. It would appear that the benefits referred to for the Natal
section are applicable only to a short stretch of the route in proximity to Durban. This failure to
provide relevant information and properly assessed impact studies is significant. I consider their
omission to be a fatal flaw in the assessment report.
Scope of work for whole project
The road was proposed in 2002 and rejected - what are the improvements now that it is back
on the table?
•
Intersections and interchanges:
Interchange required at Wartski Drive in Margate
No mention made with regard to an off ramp into Margate via Wartski Drive [motivation
provided]. Off ramp into Margate is desperately needed [motivation provided]. Off ramp
previously requested for access to the hospital and the airport – are these being looked at?
Credibility of SANRAL is on the line because for years access has been requested at Margate
and it was said that it can’t be done.
E
Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/ FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide comprehensive
information on the proposed scope of the initial construction works.
S
SANRAL has indicated that the need for additional interchanges would be investigated further.
S
6.2.2
Interchange to Margate CBD
Construct an off ramp at Margate – the route should be upgraded into the business hub of
Margate.
SANRAL has indicated that the need for additional interchanges would be investigated further.
S
6.2.3
Interchanges in eThekwini
No mention made of high priority necessity for upgrading of Moss Kolnik Interchange
[motivation provided]; SANRAL hides the fact that they are expecting the owners of Arbour
Village to pay for the complete upgrading of Moss Kolnik and make the dishonest claim that
toll fees will pay for the Adams Road Interchange upgrade but, as usual, no mention is made
of the fact that eThekwini will be paying for 50% of this cost – ratepayers are then expected to
pay twice. Why was the Adams Road upgrade declined in the previous application but now
presented as a carrot? – what is the time schedule for implementing it? On and off ramps and
pedestrian bridges needed – off ramps are needed at the Shell Ultra City and Madondo
[motivation provided].
SANRAL has indicated that the need for additional interchanges would be investigated further.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that proposed upgrades are dependent on, amongst others, current
and anticipated traffic volumes and operational safety considerations. The proposed reconstruction
of Adams Road Interchange would be undertaken during the Initial Construction Works period.
167
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
6.2.3.1
The Adam’s Road interchange has been a long standing issue in the Amanzimtoti area. This is an
example of procrastination as a result of split responsibility between various developers, the
municipality and the Hadison Park Trust. As result of the different interests no decision has been
taken over the years with the result it is now being used to motivate a Toll Road. I find this pathetic
that the Municipal Managers and SANRAL cannot resolve the problem separate from this proposal.
If no decision can be arrived at I would suggest that the Adam’s Road off ramps be closed from the
N2 for the purposes of safety. I am convinced a cheaper option can be thought of, by for example
building an on-ramp going north before Adam’s Road. This on-ramp could link with Adam’s Road.
Noted. According to SANRAL, the unique topography, proximity of the main railway line and
drainage structures present challenges to finding an appropriate solution. Extensive design studies
have been carried out of which the proposed design represents the most appropriate and costeffective design solution (refer to layout plan in Figure 4.30, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
E
6.2.3.2
I do not want an on ramp at Dickens Road as it would back onto our home. Our green buffer would
be destroyed. There are at least 3 duiker, many meerket, beautiful trees and nesting birds in this
greenbelt. It blocks the noise and dust of the N2 highway and brings peace and tranquillity to an
otherwise noisy, dusty environment.
The project description for the section between Mthamvuna River and the Isipingo Interchange
(Section 4.2.7) does not include provision of an on ramp at Dickens Road. If proposed, this would
be subject to a separate environmental authorisation process.
E
Interchanges and intersections on KZN South Coast
There are some 27 roads that currently access the R61 from the seaward and landward sides,
but upgrades are only indicated at four – how will the other access roads be catered for
except at enormous expense, as there are virtually no feeder roads parallel to the R61 at
present. What exactly does “upgrading of at-grade intersections” mean? Need on and off
ramps for Uthuthwini and Mtfazazane. Will there be more intersections or parallel roads on
the stretch from Port Edward to Southbroom? Are the Turton intersection and Wartski Drive
interchange firmly on the agenda? - it could bring some tourism to the area; integrated and
holistic approach needed. Where the road passes through developed areas road links are
needed to make it possible for people to go and buy the newspaper, groceries, etc.
[motivation provided]. Different positions for the Port Edward Interchange are shown – will it
be north or south of the Mthamvuna River? Will feeder roads be built on both sides of the
highway from Southbroom to Port Edward? [motivation provided].
SANRAL has indicated that the need for additional interchanges would be investigated further. It
should be noted that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder roads
constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points.
S
At a SANRAL public briefing meeting in Port Shepstone on 22 May 2006, the Trafalgar Ratepayers' and
Residents' Association Committee brought to the attention of those SANRAL representatives present that
there was a total of 27 intersections on the existing R61 between and including the Port Edward traffic
lights and the Southbroom traffic lights, that would be 27 intersections over 21km. The SANRAL
representatives expressed surprise at this revelation, noted it and promised to report back on the situation,
including what access roads, including the one out of Trafalgar, would remain. Please note the date of that
meeting, 22 May 2006. Since then, a SANRAL map of the route between Port Edward and Southbroom
has surfaced, on which are dearly marked 7 interchanges, including the ones at Port Edward, Trafalgar
and Southbroom, 14 underpasses and/or two-sided or single access roads, and 14 closed access roads.
The map is dated May 2003. The discrepancy in the dates and information available is interesting. No new
maps of this stretch are apparently available and no new planning has "been done, meaning there is NO
new information available on this stretch. EXACTLY WHAT IS PLANNED?
There are no alternative routes or roads between Trafalgar and Port Edward or Trafalgar and Southbroom,
the highway will be the only option Tor local traffic. In this regard, Table 9. on Page xv says, 'Consolidation
of access points - illegal arid dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder roads constructed to
provide access to at new, safe and appropriate access points'. Whose access points are to be dosed,
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder
roads constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points as part of
SANRAL’s longer-term upgrading strategy. Such upgrading shall be implemented as required by
SANRAL but could also form part of the Initial Construction Works for the proposed N2 Wild Coast
Toll Highway. These would be subject to separate environmental approval processes, as
appropriate.
E
6.2.4
6.2.4.1
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
168
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
where are feeder roads to be constructed, whose properties will be affected? There are no answers to
these vital questions.
When
6.2.4.2
The interchange design for the Southbroom Interchange as depicted on Figure 4.28 in Volume 1 of the
DEIR is not the same plan as that agreed upon between SANRAL and Mr Peckham.
Noted. Figure 4.28 has been updated, as appropriate, in Volume 1 of the Final EIR.
E
6.2.4.3
Provision should be made for access to Nzimakhwe and KwaXolo.
Noted. The proposed consolidation and formalisation of accesses would be subject to separate
environmental authorisation processes, as appropriate.
E
6.2.5
Intersections and interchanges on N2 between East London and Mthatha
Road from the R63 joining the 2 was previously planned but not at the current location as this
is dangerous. Will the Komga Interchange be raised above the road? Intersections on the
N2 are badly designed because they are too steep and the water run-off undermines the
houses. There is a need for properly designed “cattle grids” because the ones there are no
good and the cows just walk over them. Requests cattle grid gates at Cunningham and
Nozulu. Would there be interchanges to allow people to join the highway? Dangerous areas
like the Ndabakazi and Bika turn-offs would need to be looked at carefully. Off-ramps towards
local communities must be improved.
Noted. Please refer to typical layout details of proposed road upgrades shown in Appendix 18 of
the FSR.
S
6.2.6
Intersections and interchanges on R61 between Ndwalane and Mthatha
Would off-ramps and interchanges with the existing roads be provided.
Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide comprehensive
information on the proposed scope of the initial construction works.
S
Based on predicted traffic volumes and operational safety, SANRAL proposes to add two lanes and
paved shoulders between the Amanzimtoti Bridge and the Isipingo Interchange while a further two
lanes are proposed between Dickens Road and Joyner Road interchanges. SANRAL has
indicated that roads without refuge on the shoulders for stationary vehicles are for obvious reasons
unsafe.
S
Please refer to typical layout details of the proposed upgrades shown in Appendix 18 of the FSR.
S
Please refer to typical layout details of the proposed upgrades shown in Appendix 18 of the FSR.
Section 1.6 (Table 7) of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13, Part 1) provides
the estimated construction costs (in 2007 Rand, excl. VAT) for the proposed toll highway and the
freeway sections south of Durban while Section 1.7 provides the estimated maintenance and
operating costs.
E
Please refer to typical layout details of the proposed upgrades shown in Appendix 18 of the FSR.
S
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.2.1
6.3.3
•
Road widening, improved vertical and horizontal alignments:
Change the lane markings to create additional lanes
Observations show that the section of road from Athlone Park to Joyner Road has the highest
traffic – why not remark this section to three lanes?
Road widening not practical
Addition of a fourth lane between Dickens Road and Joyner Road in each direction is not
practical – the Mbokodweni River bridge would have to be rebuilt and certain properties in
Athlone Park may have to be expropriated.
How will the widening of the N2 between Adams Road and Isipingo be done, and how much will this
road and bridge work cost.
Road widening will not solve flawed design of N2 on KZN Upper South Coast
To merely add additional lanes and resolve the Adams Road Interchange problem does not
address the fact that the stretch of road is flawed in total – thus this should become a local
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
169
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
road and should be handed to KZN province or eThekwini municipality and an alternative
route should be followed by the N2.
6.3.4
Improvements in eThekwini are not a priority
The eThekwini Transport Authority (ETA) is certain that road improvements as proposed in the
Municipal area do not require improvement at this stage – although various benefits such as
“reduced travel time” are quoted, with tolling, this will in fact be negated by the delay through a
toll booth; none of the improvements stated have been identified in the ETA’s Integrated
Transport Plan (2005-2010) – there are more serious problems on the national road network
in the eThekwini municipal area that should require priority.
Noted. The economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13) includes investigation and
assessment of road user costs and benefits. Supporting data and calculations regarding road user
costs along the various road sections of the proposed toll highway are provided in the Appendices
of the economic specialist report. A summary of the economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs
“before” minus the road user costs “after”) along the various road sections of the proposed toll
highway is shown in Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
S
SANRAL has indicated that its main object relates to the planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of all national roads.
S
Improvements between East London and Mthatha
Previously requested the rehabilitation and upgrading of the section from Gonubie to
Mooiplaas and from Mooiplaas to Komga; also raised the issue of fencing; also requested
section from Komga to the Kei River to be widened for climbing lanes and wanted
underpasses because of the accidents on this section; also wanted Kei River to Ngobozi
upgrading. Proposing upgrading of road from East London again – when is the road to
Mthatha going to be upgraded? Plans on the table for 15 years for SANRAL to assist with
traffic flow within Mthatha and with maintaining he roads in Mthatha – something must be
done. What would happen to water pipes close to the road? Would road be widened on both
sides? Would the N2 be widened between East London and Mthatha? How many lanes
would be on the proposed toll road in each direction? How would Kei Cuttings be improved?
Critical to improve Kei Cuttings because rocks were falling, especially in summer when it
rained.
Noted. Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide comprehensive
information on the proposed scope of the initial construction works.
6.3.6
Improvements to R61 between Ndwalane and Mthatha
How many metres would the existing road be extended? Will the road be widened on the
Ngqeleni side or the Libode side and how wide will the road be? Road should be extended on
the other side to Misty Mount where there are no houses because they do not have the land to
allocate to people who will be removed.
Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide comprehensive
information on the proposed scope of the initial construction works.
Noted.
S
6.3.7
Additional lanes should be added further south of Dickens Road 0ff Ramp
Your idea of a four lane from Isipingo to Dickens Road off ramp is ridiculous as a great flow of traffic
comes from further south.
Noted. As mentioned in Section 4.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, further widening would be
undertaken along the various sections of the proposed toll highway during the balance of the
concession period, as appropriate. This work would be subject to separate environmental
authorisation processes, as required.
E
6.4
6.4.1
•
Noted.
S
6.3.5
Design standards:
Lower design speeds
The section of the N2 through Amanzimtoti is not designed for 120 km/h – why not reduce the
speed limit in these areas to an acceptable level – a fit for purpose alternative.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
The number of lanes of a toll road would depend on anticipated traffic volumes and operational
safety aspects.
170
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Improved design of existing roads
If the 40 km/h design speed of the R61 from Ntafufu to Lusikisiki can be improved why can the
same not be done between Ndwalane and Ntafufu? Road should be improved with thick
cement so that the heavy trucks don’t damage it.
The rationale for discarding the upgrading of the existing R61 between Ndwalane and Ntafufu River
via the Pondoland Bridge further in the EIA process is provided in Section 5.2.4.1 of the DSR/FSR.
Further, the independent technical reviewer has indicated that, although the existing road between
Ndwalane and Ntafufu has recently been improved, most of its geometry remains poor. Over this
section, there are two passes with mountainous geometry - steep grades, numerous sharp curves,
and S-bends, etc. The average speed achievable by a light vehicle over the entire 26.5km long
section is at best about 50 to 60 kph - and would be substantially slower if delayed by large trucks.
Also, the topography is such that a road following this route cannot cost-effectively be realigned
into a facility that might be of a standard that would be acceptable for inclusion into the national
road network. If a high standard realignment were possible along this existing route, it would have
to be built at such a high unit cost/km that it could not possibly work out to be cheaper overall than
the cost of construction of a totally new and shorter route, which would also benefit the road user
(refer to Appendix 17 of the FSR).
S
6.4.2.1
Toll roads must comply to certain design standards in terms of gradient and curvature for example.
The proposed new section will comply with these standards, but upon reaching Lusikisiki, the
existing road infrastructure to near Port St. Johns, as well as the section west of Port St Johns at
Ntshilini to Libode will not. This road section has very steep grades and sharp curves and there
appears to be no plans to improve this section.
Refer to response provide above. Also, Tables 4.3 and 4.5, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR
indicate that widening, addition of climbing lanes and realignment of the existing road would be
undertaken, as required.
E
6.4.2.2
Has flood attenuation been considered in planning since the KZN South Coast is prone to flooding. If
so, how much has been set aside?
According to SANRAL, the design of any upgrades or improvements of the existing N2 in KZN
would the done in accordance with SANRAL’s Drainage Manual, which is South Africa’s latest
national standard. Designs in respect of stormwater management would make allowance for any
flood management that may be required.
E
Section 4.2.4 indicates that the proposed new road would comprise a 2-lane single carriageway
highway. Refer to Appendix 18 of the FSR for typical layout details.
S
Noted.
E
Noted.
S
Noted. Maintenance of the relevant roads would be addressed on an ongoing basis.
S
Note also that the figures were increased, as appropriate, in order to provide estimated
maintenance and operating costs in 2007 Rand.
E
6.4.2
6.4.3
Design of new sections of road
Would the new section of road be separated (dual carriageway)?
6.4.4
Design for labour intensive construction methods
Sanral should consider the changed financial and labour environment at the present time. The road
should be built in such a way that intensive labour policies are introduced and a low cost location of
the road. Not numerous high tech bridges!
6.5
6.5.1
•
6.5.2
6.5.2.1
Road maintenance:
Grass cutting
Is cutting the grass twice a year regarded as good maintenance – Scottburgh/Dududu
Interchange is currently a danger spot [motivation provided].
Road maintenance
Would the road be maintained? The toll road at Hibberdene is a disgrace and shocking – is
that how things are going to be done in future? – will money be paid for a lousy road?
The assumption used for maintenance on the Toll roads is very conservative being based on the N1
north and south of Gauteng where the traffic volume far exceeds the volumes on the South Coast
and the proposed N2 Wild Coast route.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
171
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
6.5.2.2
Will the servicing of oil traps, and collection of litter, dealing with oil spills etc be properly coordinated?
Yes, these aspects would be properly coordinated since the proposed toll highway would be
operated and maintained in accordance with a Concession Contract which would include specific
Environmental Requirements and procedures for dealing with emergency incidents. Section 3.6.2,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR highlights some of the safety and traffic management measures
which would need to be in operation on the proposed toll highway.
This would include the
establishment of a highway patrol service that would patrol the length of the road on a daily basis.
The patrol would set out to detect any incidents likely to threaten the safety of road users and to
deal with such matters safely and expeditiously.
E
6.5.2.3
APCA also finds disingenuous the suggestion in Item 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR that, due to
insufficient funding of SANRAL, the “do nothing” scenario will result in a general deterioration of the
road. This assumption would appear to force the general public that we’d better believe that having
a toll road is the only viable option, because otherwise all we can look forward to is a worsening
road infrastructure. Would there be any difference in the approach to upkeep of roads in the areas
through which the toll road passes, whether the toll road goes ahead or not?
SANRAL has indicated that, in receiving grant funding from the national fiscus to operate and
maintain the national road network, it competes with other national funding priorities and projects
for scarce public funds. Expenditure on the maintenance and upgrading of the existing N2 and
R61 would, by necessity, be limited to the essentials only if it were unable to raise its own toll
funding. Capital-intensive upgrade work could in all likelihood be delayed until sufficient funds
become available, but such funds could be diverted at any time for identified needs elsewhere.
E
6.6
6.6.1
•
According to SANRAL, underpasses and overpasses would be provided where it would be safe
and possible to do so.
S
Culverts, underpasses and overpasses:
Amanzimtoti
Could underpasses be provided between Adams Road and the Amanzimtoti River whilst the
envisaged interchange and reconstruction of the bridge is undertaken?
6.6.2
KwaZulu-Natal South Coast
Large numbers of people from the rural area on the KZN South Coast cross the R61 from
landward to seaward – how will they be catered for? No designated crossings between the
Mpenjati and Mthamvuna rivers – there needs to be consultation with locals before such
crossings are fixed [motivation provided]. What are the plans to address children crossing the
highway on the existing N2 just outside Port Shepstone on the way to Harding? Road would
result in lots of accidents and many under-privileged pedestrians are going to be squashed.
Information required on the overpasses and underpasses that will be built for the protection of
people crossing the roads. The bridge at Umnini is not used and people still cross the road –
fencing is stolen or cut down and often seen cows grazing in the centre of the freeway – can’t
more effective solutions than fencing be found? Necessary for bridges to be built at points
where people cross the road [suggested location provided]. Innovative solutions for animals,
pedestrians and busses required.
According to SANRAL, underpasses and overpasses would be provided where it would be safe
and possible to do so. It is envisaged that the exact location and number of underpasses and
overpasses would be finalised in consultation with directly affected communities during the detailed
design phase.
S
6.6.3
Pondoland
Within the Transkei the road should be fenced where there is no grass for grazing and provide
adequate underpasses for the livestock to move safely from one side to the other. No
indication of locations of pedestrian crossings in the report when will communities be provided
with this information and will the crossings be designed to be disabled-friendly? What
provision will be made for cattle to cross the road? What will be the arrangement for people
who need to cross the road to the other side as the road will cut through villages. Specific
locations for over- and underpasses requested. Overpasses often used to throw stones at
Noted. According to SANRAL, underpasses and overpasses would be provided where it would be
safe and possible to do so. It is envisaged that the exact location and number of underpasses and
overpasses would be finalised in consultation with directly affected communities during the detailed
design phase.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
172
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
vehicles. Subways should be wide enough to accommodate outspanned oxen and livestock
to go to the fields.
6.6.4
Existing R61 between Port St Johns and Mthatha
Need to address needs of people from the same community who live on both sides of the
proposed road and the issue of their safety. People next to Mount Nicholas graze their cattle
on the other side of the road. At Tombo the school and the dipping tank are on one side and
children and cattle on the other – how would this be addressed? What safety measures would
be provided for livestock and people crossing the road?
Noted. According to SANRAL, underpasses and overpasses would be provided where it would be
safe and possible to do so. It is envisaged that the exact location and number of underpasses and
overpasses would be finalised in consultation with directly affected communities during the detailed
design phase.
S
6.6.5
Existing N2 between East London and Mthatha
Will alternative accesses be created for tractors to access agricultural land? Pedestrian
bridges, access roads, cattle subways, and on and off ramps requested [various specific
localities given]. Underpasses should be done properly.
Would underpasses and
overpasses recommended by the community be built? Criminals could hide in subways.
Bridge was built in a place not chosen by the people and people were not using it. Suggests
that committees be formed by people between Kei Bridge and Butterworth to look at where
bridges and subways should be.
SANRAL has indicated that alternative accesses would be created for tractors to access
agricultural land. According to SANRAL, underpasses and overpasses would be provided where it
would be safe and possible to do so. It is envisaged that the exact location and number of
underpasses and overpasses would be finalised in consultation with directly affected communities
during the detailed design phase.
S
6.6.5.1
We the community of ikomkhulu lakwa Ndilele at Munyu A/A, Dutywa, Eastern Cape wish to inform
of an institution that exists on the N2, approximately 10km from Dutywa enroute to Mthatha [See
diagram 1 on e161]. There is a spring along the tarmac, on the right hand side (facing Mthatha)
about 100m above. The water from this spring flows under the tarmac, (tarmac being approximately
1.2m above) into a dam which is ±100m lower down [see diagram 2 on e161] designated area
±10km from Dutywa. This area has now been designated as a place of prayer. The Department of
Heritage is fully involved in support of this project and plans are underway to start building on this
site. Our requests are: A bridge be built, high enough so as not to crawl under. On the bridge
structure a board bearing the name Empilisweni be mounted there on (see diagram 3 on e161).
Also, that speed humps be mounted in this area.
Note that the exact location and number of underpasses and overpasses would be finalised in
consultation with directly affected communities during the detailed design phase.
E
6.7
•
Please refer to Appendix 18 of the FSR for typical layout plans for proposed road upgrades.
According to SANRAL the contractors would be obliged to provide a high standard of traffic
accommodation during the construction phase.
It is envisaged that there would be one mainline toll plaza in the section between Mthatha and
Ntafufu, i.e. either at Ndwalane or in the vicinity of Ntlaza Mission.
S
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that intersections (future interchanges) are proposed at all locations
where the proposed new toll highway between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River would cross
existing district roads. Please refer to Appendix 18 of the FSR for typical layout plans of
intersections.
S
6.8
•
Toll plazas:
There is no space for a toll plaza at Adams Road Interchange. Positioning of the Isipingo toll
plaza will cause absolute chaos during the construction phase. Proposed that the Ngobozi toll
plaza rather be called “Ndabakazi” toll plaza. Why isn’t the Ngobozi toll plaza placed at the
bottom by the Great Kei River? – sure there is better infrastructure next to the service station.
Will there be a toll plaza at Ntlaza and Ndwalane?
Access to the toll road:
The highways through the rural areas of Transkei are death traps because people access the
roads at any point – access roads need to be provided at frequent intervals along the highways
with good barriers preventing people from crossing the roads except at recognised points –
existing and proposed highways should skirt villages rather than go through them. No
connections are indicated between currently isolated coastal communities and the toll road.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
173
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
As many off-ramps as possible should be built in the Eastern Cape area to allow local people
the benefit of access to the road. Current access at a number of the 17 road access points
between the Mpenjati and Mthamvuna rivers is unsafe and not suitable for a highway – in
particular, the road at the proposed access to Leisure Bay and Nzimakwe needs to be
realigned to improve visibility to the south. There are a total of 27 incoming roads or
intersections between, and including, Port Edward and Southbroom – what does “consolidation
of access points“ mean? – are feeder roads going to be built on both sides of the highway?
Will the existing entrance to the San Lameer Estate remain? Three off-ramps are suggested
through the Amadiba Tribal Authority area [details provided]. How would access be provided
to the proposed toll road for local people in the greenfields section? Concern is accessibility to
the road from the existing gravel roads. Will people be able to get out of their homes onto the
proposed toll road without difficulty? How many exits and access points to the proposed toll
road would be built in the Pondoland area? How would the proposed toll road affect roads in
rural areas, especially those that were next to the proposed toll road? Access of local people
to the toll road was not clear. If the purpose is to increase access to the Wild Coast, were
there any off ramps planned between Port St Johns and Port Edward? Intersection requested
at Baleni onto the new section of toll road. How many access points would there be, how far
apart would these be and over what length of road would this be? Accessibility is a very
sensitive thing. Ensure that local people have access to these roads. Where would off-ramps
go to? How many off-ramps will there be between Lusikisiki and Port Edward? Farms
between Southbroom and Port Edward, which currently have access to a road, should not be
cut off from their access and become landlocked. Is provision being made for interconnecting
the smaller communities particularly in the Port Edward area?
According to SANRAL, illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder roads
constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points. Also, Section 2.3,
Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR indicates that the proposed consolidation and formalisation of
accesses would be subject to separate environmental authorisation processes, as appropriate.
6.8.1
Consideration should be given to retaining access currently provided to farmers and the rural
communities (on the R61 and N2 within Hibiscus Coast Municipality).
Noted. This will be considered as part of the planning and design process, as appropriate.
However, SANRAL has indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder
roads constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points.
E
6.8.2
Consideration should be given to the 2 new paved roads under construction to join the freeway in
KwaXolo and KwaNzimakhwe areas (on the R61 within Hibiscus Coast Municipality).
Noted. This will be considered as part of the planning and design process, as appropriate.
However, SANRAL has indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder
roads constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points.
E
6.8.3
No areas must be landlocked as a result of the N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway, particularly the farms
on the N2 and R61 within Hibiscus Coast Municipality.
Noted. This will be considered as part of the planning and design process, as appropriate.
However, SANRAL has indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder
roads constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points.
E
6.9
•
Noted. These comments would be considered in the detailed design phase.
S
Footpaths:
Footpaths need to be provided along the sides of the roads – a barrier should be provided
between the road and footpaths, and demarcated pedestrian crossings provided [motivation
provided]. If bridges are built across the massive gorges in Pondoland local people are bound
to walk across them from one side to the other – safe footpaths will be essential for people with
their belongings and livestock. There are no footpaths along the N2 but there are many
pedestrians. Majority of the population walk long distances by foot or use bicycles; if the
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
174
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
existing N2 from Port Edward to Durban is tolled more vehicles will use the existing R61 and
endanger pedestrians even more – thus, proper footpaths should be built for them to walk on
safely.
6.10
6.11
6.12
•
•
•
Lay byes, public transport stops and rest areas:
Public transport needs to be provided for, with stopping points and shelters along the roads –
indestructible concrete shelters would be ideal. Hitchhiking stopping points should also be
provided. What factors would be considered in determination of stopping points for public
transport? Specific locations for taxi and bus stopping points requested. Proper side roads
should be constructed to give entrance to rural communities in order to offset their goods to
travellers. Lay byes for taxis and busses with proper shelters and facilities for informal traders
should be provided.
Appropriate design for greenfields section:
A poorly designed N2 toll road may divide traditional villages and not provide for transport
facilities that the local residents need. How much of an impact will mining and conservation
have on the current alignment of the road?
EMP:
Adams Road Interchange upgrade and the Isipingo mainline toll plaza would totally destroy the
Amanzimtoti CBD and adjacent roads – the Isipingo plaza would be impossible to construct
without major upheaval to road users and the environment. Who will monitor the project in
terms of ensuring fair employment of local labour and SMMEs? Will there be any hazardous
chemicals used during construction and if so, how will accidents that could affect local
communities be prevented? If dynamite s used to blast rock someone could get hurt.
Contractors eventually leave dangerous or unrehabilitated holes which kill children and stock.
Letter of authorisation required from DWAF KZN for widening of roads, as well as an EMP for
the activities – there is a responsibility to ensure that stormwater from the roads does not run
into the rivers.
6.12.1
My concern is how you would be able to bring pollution down to a minimum during the construction
of the proposed new road.
6.13
6.13.1
•
Borrow pits and quarries:
Borrow pits
Borrow pits are of greater importance than the report shows – its exclusion from the study
brings doubt on the comprehensive scope of the Scoping Report. Who will pay for the soils
and gravels used during construction? Would the construction company use commercial
borrow pits and quarries or source the material from the tribal authorities?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to SANRAL, public transport needs would be provided where it would be safe and
possible to do so. It is anticipated that they would be provided at least at the present major
intersections. The exact location and number of stopping points would be finalised in consultation
with directly affected communities during the detailed design phase.
S
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that new road reserves were usually 80 m wide. Refer further to
declaration of the national road N2 between “Umtata and Mtamvuna River”, Notice No. 583 of 7
May 2004 (Government Gazette No. 26330).
S
Noted. According to SANRAL the contractors would be obliged to provide a high standard of traffic
accommodation during the construction phase. An EMP would be implemented, which would set
out actions, responsibilities and schedules for the implementation of the mitigation measures as
prescribed in the EIA.
S
An EMP would be implemented, which would set out actions, responsibilities and schedules for the
implementation of the mitigation measures (including pollution prevention and control, dust
management, etc.).
E
Noted. The development of borrow pits would be subject to obtaining the necessary approvals and
permits as per applicable national legislation. SANRAL has indicated that no materials would be
sourced from tribal authorities - where materials would be required, the borrow pits will be acquired
in terms of the land acquisition process.
S
175
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
6.13.2
6.14
6.15
Response
Quarries
What about royalties for any quarries for the traditional authorities occupying the land? If local
quarries are used, would the community be paid for the stone? What quarries would be used
for construction of the road? Eastern cape is rich with dolomite stone – at no point can stone
be sourced out from another province.
•
•
Spoil areas:
Identification and description of the spoil areas should be part of the study as it is an activity
with potentially serious socio-economic and biophysical impacts.
Bridges:
The Mthamvuna Bridge is a narrow 2-lane bridge, not at all suited to the likely traffic load, and
certainly not for a four-lane highway as is envisaged. Impact of upgrading the Mthamvuna
bridge so close to the coastal zone is inappropriate. Why is it now proposed to attend to the
Amanzimtoti River bridge whereas it was declined previously – why the change and what is the
time schedule? Will there be a new bridge over the Mthamvuna River? Box culvert type
bridges affect the flow rate into lagoons and estuaries on the KZN South Coast, causing a lot
of build up. Does the projected cost of just over R3 billion include the cost of the bridges?
Licences are needed from DWAF KZN for putting bridges over rivers – if anything needs to be
done with the bridge at Umbogintwini relating to widening of the roads, authorisation is needed
from DWAF KZN.
6.15.1
At the bridge in Butterworth if there is an accident or something then nobody can get in or out of the
town. I propose another route for the N2 but not necessarily a bypass.
6.16
•
6.17
•
Resurfacing:
The road between Margate and Port Edward is resurfaced just about every year just as the
upcountry tourists arrive – it’s already been resurfaced to death.
Secondary access roads:
Lambasi Administrative Area requests a tar road that would join the proposed N2 from the area
[motivation provided]. Will anything be done about access roads to local villages and places
of the kings as they are in very poor condition. Will there be any developments in terms of
accessing the coast? Road to Xolobeni is very bad and it’s the first one that needs to be
upgraded. Would there be any new roads that would connect the N2 toll road, for example,
with the Ntafufu Mouth and other seaside resorts? How would people access the beach at
Mkambati as the N2 toll road crosses the existing road to Mkambati. Who would be
responsible for completion of the tarring of the road from Flagstaff to Holy Cross? Will roads
be provided to communities inland of Scottburgh? Can something be done about tarring local
community access roads? EC province and municipalities would not be able to maintain the
internal roads; would be difficult to access tourism areas from the toll road – maintenance of
access roads should be the joint responsibility of SANRAL, the province and municipalities.
Can the road to Msikaba Mouth be upgraded? During construction access roads to
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
SANRAL has indicated that no materials would be sourced from tribal authorities - where materials
would be required, the borrow pits or quarries will be acquired in terms of the land acquisition
process.
S
Noted.
S
It should be noted that the Initial Construction Works associated with the proposed toll highway
involves maintenance and rehabilitation of the Mthamvuna River bridge only – it is considered that
this would not result in any key potential impacts on the coastal zone. Widening of the Amanzimtoti
River bridge is proposed in order to address increased traffic volumes and safety aspects. The
proposed work would be undertaken during the Initial Construction Works period. The cost of
bridges would be included for the projected cost of the entire project.
S
Noted.
E
Noted.
S
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that secondary access roads fall outside the scope of the proposed
initial construction works described in Chapter 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
S
176
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
communities should be improved. Would there be an access road from Fairview across to
Fort Harrison? Is the whole local road network in a state of disrepair?
6.17.1
The roads to Mkambati and Mthantasi also must be upgraded as they are very bad and muddy.
6.18
6.18.1
•
6.18.1.1
What are the timeframes for implementing the whole project, will it happen in phases?
6.19
6.19.1
•
6.19.1.1
There must be a link between Mthentu and Mnyameni.
6.19.2
6.20
6.20.1
Construction programme:
Start of construction and expected completion
If the project were approved, how soon would it be before construction starts? When will the
road be completed? Has the toll road already been started elsewhere? Had any company
already been awarded the job to construct the road? When will the toll plazas be built?
Wanted road to be finished before the 2010 World Cup so that products could be sold to the
tourists.
Road alignment:
Location of alignment
Where is Mkambati in relation to the site of the proposed road? Will the road go where
geologists did previous studies, especially the crossing of the Mthentu? Do not want the road
crossing Mkambati as the TRACOR land is used for grazing and people from Cele and
Khanyayo will need to cross the road with their livestock so they need to be consulted. Heard
that road was going along the coast but now it’s seen that it goes via Mthatha – would be
shorter via Coffee Bay along the coast. Would existing road between Ndwalane and Mthatha
be upgraded or a new road built. Information requested on exact alignment of route in a
number of areas (e.g. Misty Mount, Khanyayo, etc.). Would the funeral parlour in Dutywa be
in the way of the planned road? What is the status of the SDI route? Why was the first route
changed? Thought route was further away from Matheko as there wasn’t enough grazing
land. Road should go across the Casino land because households do not want to be
removed. How far inland is the road?
Surveying
Has the route for the road been surveyed between Mthentu and Msikaba and between
Mthatha and Ndwalane? Have surveyors met with the chiefs and the community? Worried
about red pegs next to houses in Mkamela. Has a survey been done to show the affected
houses.
•
Fencing:
Fencing of new sections of road
Imperative that the road be properly fenced; fencing would prevent cattle getting onto the
road. Safety measures for livestock required because when a fence is erected people just cut
the fence or remove it. Would the road be fenced? What about affected livestock where the
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that secondary access roads fall outside the scope of the proposed
initial construction works described in Chapter 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR.
E
According to SANRAL, construction would commence at least one to two years after approval.
Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive description of the proposed construction activities that would
be undertaken during the initial construction period (normally the first three years) of the
concession. It is anticipated that the toll plazas would be built towards the end of completion of the
road construction.
S
Refer to response provided above.
E
Chapters 3 and 4 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR provide a comprehensive
description, with illustrations, of the proposed route of the toll highway. Alternative alignments of
the proposed toll highway, including the SDI route, are presented in Chapter 5.
S
Noted.
E
See declaration of the national road N2 between “Umtata and Mtamvuna River”, Notice No. 583 of
7 May 2004 (Government Gazette No. 26330).
S
Noted.
S
177
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
road cuts though villages? Is it possible to put in a type of fencing that would not limit access?
Would access to the road not be affected by fencing?
6.20.2
Maintenance of fencing
People tend to steal fencing - can SANRAL not try and use a non-reusable material for
fencing? – education and consultation with villagers is important to try and change behaviour
patterns. Vandalism of fencing leads to livestock being killed by cars – what provision would
be made to prevent livestock from going onto the road? When will fence be completed on the
existing N2? Projects should be created for local people to maintain fencing. Cutting of the
fence endangers the safety of schoolchildren. People would steal the fence in the new
section of the road. Who is going to fence the road and maintain the fencing? Fencing will be
cut and removed.
When
Noted. If the proposed project goes ahead, the Concessionaire would consider these and other
concerns regarding maintenance of fencing.
S
6.20.2.1
Fencing off the road is totally unrealistic as people will simply cut the fences just as they are already
doing on the new road between Langeni (Mthatha) and Ugie. This road is not even completed yet.
Broken fences along a route where the drivers expect to be able to travel at high speed in safety will
create conditions for far more serious accidents than what already happen.
Noted. Refer to response provided above.
E
6.20.2.2
The fencing is often broken by people and I propose guards or rangers to look after the fencing and
ensure that gates are kept closed so that cattle doesn’t get on the road.
Noted. If the proposed project goes ahead, the Concessionaire would consider these and other
concerns regarding maintenance of fencing.
E
6.21
6.21.1
•
Noted.
S
Drainage and stormwater management:
Stormwater run-off
Stormwater currently flows from the existing N2 directly to houses and causes damage to
foundations and walls – SANRAL has promised to fix this but it had never been done.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
178
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 7:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to Road Traffic and Transportation, with responses from the EIA
project team and SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
7.1
7.1.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Traffic and transportation studies and data:
Impact of HIV/AIDS on future traffic volumes
Predicted future traffic volumes is simplistic in the extreme as this does not take projected
decreases in population due to AIDS into account.
When
Noted.
S
7.1.2
Current traffic studies
Any decision should be deferred to after results of an integrated traffic study are available and the
results made known to the public. Has the Durban Integrated Transport Plan been considered?
Are there any numbers that can be quoted from traffic studies as to the actual number of vehicles
passing at the proposed location of the Isipingo Toll Plaza, as it is subject to extremely high traffic
volumes at peak times. Need to take into account the Public Transportation Plan – proposed
project will negatively affect public transport fares, tourism initiatives and other developments.
Postpone any further EIA until the whole transport infrastructure strategic framework has been
made public [motivation provided].
According to SANRAL it has legislated obligations in terms of the strategic planning, design,
construction, operation, rehabilitation and maintenance of national roads in South Africa.
Available road planning documents have, as far as possible, been taken into account in the
planning of the proposed project. Refer further to rationale for tolling at a national level in Section
3.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR. SANRAL has indicated that there are
indeed comprehensive traffic count data available. There is also an existing traffic counting
station at the site of the proposed toll plaza. Please refer to independent technical review report
contained in Appendix 17 of the FSR for traffic volumes in the corridor of the proposed toll
highway.
S
7.1.3
Traffic predictions for new section of road
What kind of traffic volumes are expected as opposed to what the N2 currently carries? How
much of the existing N2 traffic is expected to shift?; how much would be N3 traffic?; how much
would be locally generated?
A traffic specialist study was undertaken to consider these and other relevant concerns during the
Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process. Refer to independent Technical Review Report
presented in Appendix 17 of the FSR and the traffic specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 11 of
the Draft/Final EIR.
S
Noted. A detailed traffic specialist study was undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of
the EIA process (refer to Sections 8.2.7, 9.2 and 9.3.11 of the FSR and Volume 4, Appendix 11 of
the Draft/Final EIR).
S
7.2
7.2.1
•
Traffic congestion:
Traffic congestion in eThekwini
Opposed to the tolling of the N2 because of the congestive impact that any increase in the number
of heavy cargo carrying vehicles will have on the traffic flow through the Durban City into and out
of the Durban harbour area via the Southern freeway [motivation provided]; there will also be
compounded problems that any increase in the number of heavy cargo carrying vehicles will have
on the outer ring road and further north onto the North Coast road beyond Umhlanga Rocks
resulting in major traffic problems within the eThekwini municipal road system [motivation
provided]. An extra lane on the Upper South Coast is not going to alleviate the growing
congestion – will be unfair to toll users for a horribly congested road. “Congestion” mentioned in
Section 3.3.3 is vastly overstated [motivation provided]; the peak traffic congestion is very short
and outside of around ¾ of an hour in the mornings - the traffic in no way justifies a toll road.
There are far more serious congestion on the N2 than at Isipingo. The proposed plazas and road
widening will produce absolute chaos to an already busy road [motivation provided]. Normal traffic
will be hampered by the vast increase of heavy vehicles from mining operations in the Eastern
Cape. Isipingo plaza will create congestion in the northern direction during the morning peak, and
will slow down traffic in the southern direction due to heavy vehicles travelling up the steep incline
of the notorious Umbogintwini Hill in the afternoon peak. Should it be believed that SANRAL is
suddenly concerned about traffic congestion on the N2 between Winklespruit and Isipingo?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
179
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
[motivation provided] – SANRAL wants to extort more than R 3 billion over the next 30 years from
people in the KZN Upper South Coast for a R 4 billion in which most people in the Upper South
Coast will never use. If going into Durban from Amanzimtoti you come into a bottleneck – the
project will create a bigger bottleneck.
7.2.1.1
This new road is going to attract a considerable amount of traffic from west of eThekwini and put
considerable strain on an already overloaded N3 and the poor unsuspecting motorists who have to
access the N2 coming down the N3 and vice versa during peak times, already a nightmare, how will this
be solved. The additional flow of traffic from the west is going to negate the widening of the road and
loose any benefit of cutting down travelling time and justifying the toll payment.
These opinions are noted. According to the traffic specialist, there is no evidence to suggest that
the addition of one lane per direction on the N2 between Prospecton and Amanzimtoti would lead
to the attraction of a considerable amount of traffic from the west. For this to happen, some of the
freeway sections between the west and the N2 Prospecton – Amanzimtoti section would have to
be upgraded as well and there would have to be socio-economic or other reasons for road users
to want to undertake such a trip in large numbers.
E
7.2.1.2
Much is said about traffic congestion in the area within the Toll Road specifications. Nothing is said of
the N3 and N2 Interchange as well traffic congestion in the municipal boundaries. I suggest the Toll
Road is no resolution to this problem and is only extending the problem. What is required is an
additional ring road deviating traffic from the centre of Ethekwini say from Park Rynie linking the Marian
Hill Toll Gate with the N2 at La Mercy. This would alleviate the worsening of bottlenecks within the
Ethekwini Metropolitan area and contribute to economic growth for the foreseeable future.
These opinions are noted. According to SANRAL, an outer, outer ring road from Winklespruit that
goes inland was planned by the provincial Department of Transport in the 1970’s and were known
as MR579 and MR577. The latter road has only partially been completed – the final stages are
now about to be completed across the Mgeni River. SANRAL has indicated that the southern
parts of MR577 and the whole of MR579 have been abandoned because they are considered no
longer economically or environmentally feasible.
E
According to the traffic specialist the N2 would still have to continue to service through-traffic
south of Isipingo for a significant period of time.
7.2.1.3
It is noted from the Executive Summary that the frequent users in the KwaZulu-Natal section of the route
are mostly concentrated on the freeway sections just south of Durban. It is anticipated that their benefits
will be derived from the addition of two lanes to the existing freeway that will reduce the congestion on
this section of the road. It is suggested in the report that this will reduce the vehicle operating costs and
time costs of users. This will not work in practice as the bulk of the traffic will originate from the
Amanzimtoti Area. And the congestion will transfer to the N3 and N2 interchange.
7.3
7.3.1
•
Road safety and security issues:
Risk of hazardous material spillage
Isipingo tollgate will encourage the heavy chemical transport vehicles to use the available
alternative routes in an attempt to avoid paying the toll fees, increasing the risk of accidental
spillage and pollution in the residential areas of Athlone, Isipingo and the industrial area of
Prospecton, causing work stoppages; what would the potential risk be for chemical spillage and
pollution incidents at the Isipingo tollgate?
The traffic specialist has indicated that the reduction of future congestion such as at the N2/N3
interchange would have to be tackled by means of other projects. It should not detract from the
need for improving the N2 south of Isipingo.
E
Possible traffic diversion around toll plazas was investigated and assessed as part of the traffic
specialist study (refer to Sections 8.2.7, 9.2 and 9.3.11 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 4, Appendix
11 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
The specialist studies included identification and assessment of sources of potential risk to the
affected environment during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project, and
recommendation of practicable mitigation measures to minimise or eliminate potential negative
impacts. These measures will be incorporated into an Environmental Management Plan to be
implemented during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project.
SANRAL has indicated that experience with existing toll roads shows an initial diversion but
because of generally poorer condition, alignment and geometrics of alternative routes, the initial
diversion returns to the toll road.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
180
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
7.3.1.1
It was also noted that chemical pollution from herbicides is considered a potential problem, but
accidental or deliberate spillage from vehicles is mentioned only in relation to estuaries. Although
spillage occurs only as isolated incidents, the local effect may be catastrophic for an already stressed
environment, whether it be forest remnant, drainage system or estuary. Spillages would possibly occur
anyway, but improvements to roads lead to increased speeds and more intense accidents, thus this
potential may be exacerbated. Furthermore the availability of a faster link from the Eastern Cape cities
may tempt heavy goods vehicle owners or drivers to undertake longer shifts that are incompatible with
safe driving.
Noted. Section 3.6.2, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the various safety and traffic
management measures which would need to be in operation on the proposed toll highway. This
would include the establishment of a highway patrol service that would patrol the length of the
road on a daily basis. The patrol would set out to detect any incidents likely to threaten the safety
of road users and to deal with such matters safely and expeditiously.
E
When
7.3.2
Speeding
Widening of the N2 will not make driving safer but, on the contrary, will only encourage people to
drive faster. The existing toll roads make driving safe, less stressful and a pleasure especially in
heavy traffic and poor weather conditions.
Noted.
S
7.3.3
Toll roads are safer than normal roads
The existing toll roads make driving safe, less stressful and a pleasure especially in heavy traffic
and poor weather conditions.
Noted.
S
7.3.4
Road safety in the Eastern Cape
The statement that the highway will provide improved road user safety is laughable since the
major safety factor is whether all road users obey road regulations at all times, i.e. speed,
crossing over solid white lines, etc.; doubt that speeds up to 120 km/h will be possible [motivation
provided]. The 530 km trip from Southbroom to East London is the worst to travel in terms of
danger and stress in South Africa [motivation provided]. Entire Eastern Cape has a reputation for
bad and dangerous roads - tolling the road will help to raise the standard of roads. Will speed
restrictions be placed on portions of the road that traverse villages? Will local accident black
spots be looked at? [examples provided]. Many accidents would be caused where the N2 passes
through villages – speed humps were needed in dangerous places. Traffic signals needed at
Ndabakazi. Higher crash barriers than the current ones are needed. Safety of children and
livestock of concern where the highway cuts through villages – what provisions were being made
to prevent accidents? How will safety of people crossing the road and pedestrians along the
route be addressed? People don’t use overpasses so pedestrians are still a problem. The road
won’t be safer than the existing road because people are bad drivers and drive unroadworthy
vehicles. Needs to look at the perception that toll roads are safer than non toll roads. What
safety measures will be provided? Go ahead with building safer roads to decrease road accidents
– people will benefit more than they expected. Design of the road is not suitable and will result in
accidents and danger to pedestrians. Eastern Cape authorities need to educate people on the
use of roads to prevent deaths.
Noted. Section 3.6.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the various
safety and traffic management measures which would need to be in operation on the proposed
toll highway. This would include the establishment of a highway patrol service that would patrol
the length of the road on a daily basis. The patrol would set out to detect any incidents likely to
threaten the safety of road users and to deal with such matters safely and expeditiously.
S
I respectfully enquire on the impact that this toll road will on the residents of Port Alfred, from an increased
traffic point of view. The Toll road will decrease the travelling time up and down the coastal route which will
increase traffic volumes.
Port Alfred is situated midway between East London and Port Elizabeth on the R72 and noise pollution is a
major problem being experienced from articulated vehicles which use the R72 as a "short cut" as a means
Please be advised that the scope of the EIA for the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway
involves the affected portions of the study area between East London (Gonubie Interchange) and
Durban (Isipingo Interchange). We advise that the Department of Roads and Transport (Eastern
Cape) be approached to ascertain whether a bypass road around Port Alfred is being planned.
E
7.3.4.1
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
181
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
The present road system, according to the Draft EIR Executive Summary, is in a poor and extremely
neglected state. The existing N2 "..has been identified as amongst the most accident-prone roads in the
country" ( Refer Item 6.5.1 k). Potholes, patches, cracked surfaces, poor fencing and signage, substandard design are among the many dangerous features listed with regard to these roads. While it is
proposed that the new N2 would incorporate and upgrade sections of the old N2 and R61, this does not
guarantee that the sections omitted, as well as other local roads, would be improved to adequate safety
standards.
Noted. As mentioned in Section 5.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR, the maintenance and
upgrade of the other sections of the existing N2 and R61 sections would continue to be the
responsibility of SANRAL and the relevant provincial road authorities, as appropriate.
E
Road safety on KZN South Coast
Heavy traffic from the Xolobeni mining project and other stations further south is going to make
the N2 a nightmare for local commuters in the far South Coast. Traffic on the alternative roads
will reach unacceptable levels and make the road less safe for cyclists; the roads are not suitable
for cyclists as the verge is overgrown or very narrow in many places. At the moment there are
10-12 accidents at the improved Southbroom interchange – now there are traffic lights there. Is it
more dangerous for a golf ball to hit a car at 120 km/hr as opposed to 100 km/hr? Policing of toll
road between Hibberdene and Southbroom is non-existent – it is the most dangerous road in
terms of pedestrians [motivation provided]. Heavy traffic from the Xolobeni mining and other
stations further south is going to make the N2 a nightmare for local commuters. Road will
become suicidal if it has to carry the toll traffic, the local and in-season holiday traffic – this is a
fatal flaw in the planning of the highway from Southbroom to Port Edward.
Noted. SANRAL would implement relevant policy in terms of weigh bridges and overload control.
S
7.3.5.1
Does the Specialist or Consultants even bother with the worst safety hazards experienced here on the
N2 at Twini Hill? NO.
As part of the proposed toll highway, an additional (fourth) lane would be constructed in each
direction of travel on the N2 section between the Joyner Road and Dickens Road interchanges,
which includes Umbogintwini Hill. This would allow better separation between slow and fastmoving vehicles which would address some of the dangerous features of the hill.
E
7.3.5.2
The current access from Trafalgar onto the R61 is already hazardous. Despite rumble strips and an 80kph
speed restriction, through traffic is way too fast and largely ignores both these supposed restrictions. Once
I20kph freeway traffic and heavy vehicles from the Xolobeni mining project are added to the mix, this crossing
will be extremely dangerous.
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that illegal and dangerous accesses would be closed and feeder
roads constructed to provide access at new, safe and appropriate access points as part of
SANRAL’s longer-term upgrading strategy. Such upgrading shall be implemented as required by
SANRAL but could also form part of the Initial Construction Works for the proposed N2 Wild
Coast Toll Highway. These would be subject to separate environmental approval processes, as
appropriate.
E
7.3.5.3
On the current R61 next to Glenmore and Munster there are many car and pedestrian accidents and many
children are killed. Please install robots or speed humps on this section of the road.
Noted. Safety measures would need to comply with applicable design and safety standards for
national roads.
E
Section 3.6.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the various safety
and traffic management measures which would need to be in operation on the proposed toll
S
7.3.4.2
7.3.5
7.3.6
of moving between East London and Port Elizabeth, to and from their start and final destinations, rather
than using the N2.
On entering and leaving Port Alfred low gear has to be engaged by these vehicles due to the steep
gradients on either side of the Kowie River. Often the trucks breakdown or are involved in accidents which
present a danger to motorists and pedestrians. Are there any plans to construct a bypass road around Port
Alfred?
Security on the toll road
Will there be security guards on the toll road?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
182
When
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
7.3.6.1
There will be more hijacking at night time.
7.4
•
Response
highway. This would include the establishment of a highway patrol service that would patrol the
length of the road on a daily basis. The patrol would set out to detect any incidents likely to
threaten the safety of road users and to deal with such matters safely and expeditiously.
Ring roads and by-passes:
It is extraordinary and unacceptable that it is still not proposed to provide bypasses for
Butterworth, Dutywa and Mthatha. It is surely more advisable to reduce traffic through towns
rather than increasing it – a ring road in the Amanzimtoti area would be the correct answer. If a
road is to be built then it should bypass towns such as Bizana, Flagstaff and Lusikisiki. There is
presently heavy congestion when travelling through Butterworth and Dutywa – will these towns be
bypassed as the new road would exacerbate this situation. Where will the Mthatha bypass go? –
has land been identified – there are people there. How does the proposed toll highway affect the
suggestion of a bypass around Mount Frere? What was the time-frame for the Butterworth
bypass? Developer could use its discretion to improve Butterworth – even parking was not
sufficient. Why is the new road continuing to go through Mthatha? - this is the best time to avoid
Mthatha and go around it which would take ¾ of an hour off the journey.
7.4.1
I have not seen any reference to bypasses to towns such as Mthatha, Idutywa and Butterworth. It is
quite ludicrous if there are no bypasses. Just to build them would greatly improve the flow of traffic. If
they are now included in the plan, they should be taken as a matter of urgency regardless of the toll
road. If not, then to build a toll road which will then run into these densely populated urban areas without
bypasses is simply irresponsible and lacking in any wisdom.
7.5
7.5.1
•
7.5.2
Impact on the current N2
On the KZN Upper South Coast the N2 is currently used as a local route
The section Isipingo to Winklespruit is a suburban road used for conducting daily business and
cannot be allowed to become a major cargo carrying highway. Local residents are forced to use
the N2 as a local road in order to get from one side of town to the other. No evaluation of the
impact on access/exit to and from Durban and surrounding areas including Prospecton, Isipingo
“Beach” and “Rail and Airport.
Better links for bypassed towns
Will there be links for towns like Tsolo, Qumbu and Mount Frere? – people will be tempted to take
the newer, faster route. Will there be links between the existing and proposed road? [motivation
provided]. If there were better links then there would be a benefit to Mount Frere.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
183
When
Section 3.6.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR describes the various safety
and traffic management measures which would need to be in operation on the proposed toll
highway. This would include the establishment of a highway patrol service that would patrol the
length of the road on a daily basis. The patrol would set out to detect any incidents likely to
threaten the safety of road users and to deal with such matters safely and expeditiously.
E
SANRAL has indicated that the initial conceptual design of the proposed project took place
between 2001 and 2003. At that stage the bypasses were workshopped with the relevant
municipalities and other stakeholders. Compromise decisions were reached regarding
Butterworth and Dutywa where the existing through roads would be retained and preliminary
interim designs were produced and approved by the parties. The temporary solutions made
provision for safety and access improvements while providing improved traffic flow through the
towns. These interim solutions appear not to be feasible anymore as developments and traffic
growth have rendered them either impossible to implement or of little value if they are. In the
case of Mthatha, a preliminary design of the bypass was completed to preserve the land.
SANRAL and National policy requires national road bypasses to all towns and this policy is being
implemented over time. SANRAL has indicated it is now considering implementation of the
bypasses as soon as possible. As mentioned in Section 4.3, the proposed ring roads (bypasses)
to Butterworth, Dutywa and Mthatha would be subject to a separate environmental authorisation
process.
S
Noted. Refer to response provided above.
E
This is incorrect; this section forms part of National Route 2. A detailed traffic specialist study
was undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Sections 8.2.7,
9.2 and 9.3.11 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 4, Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
It should be noted that the proposed project does not include any linking roads between the
proposed toll highway and the existing N2.
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
7.6
7.6.1
•
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
Impact on public transport/taxi industry:
Impact on the taxi industry on KZN Upper South Coast
Some 2,850 taxi operators would inevitably be affected by the proposed installation of toll gates on
the N2 as the South Industrial Basin is the main destination of their passengers – given the small
and continuously diminishing profit margins of minibuses, these operators would have no choice
but to pass on this additional cost to the commuters – commuter resistance would inevitably follow,
with the resultant objections in an industry prone to violence. There will be an increase in taxi
fares and many people are unemployed.
When
Noted. The potential economic impact on road users was investigated as part of the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Section 9.3.13 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 4,
Appendix 13 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
According to the traffic specialist, experience in respect of taxis on toll roads in other parts of the
country has been very positive. SANRAL often prescribes or implements significant (50%) public
transport discounts for taxis and it has to be remembered that the toll tariff is shared by all the
passengers of a taxi which makes the burden significantly lower.
7.6.2
Impact on taxi industry in the Eastern Cape
Will taxis still be able to just turn around anywhere and at any time they wish to pick people up on
the other side of the road? What benefits would taxi and bus owners get? Taxis pick people up
anywhere on the road. Taxi fares will increase. How will local people get the transport from their
area to Durban as they are outside the proposed road.
According to SANRAL it is illegal under certain circumstances to perform such manoeuvres.
Public transport lay-byes would be provided where it is required and safe to do so.
S
7.6.3
Impact on the bus industry in KZN
Effects of the increase in travelling times needs to be looked at. Increased costs will be passed
on to the commuters.
These and other issues and concerns were considered in the economic specialist study
undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process. The economic specialist
report (Volume 4, Appendix 13 of the Draft/Final EIR) recommends that special rates should be
considered for bus and taxi transport, used by the majority of vulnerable people. According to
SANRAL, additional capacity on highways generally results in improved travel times, amongst
others, for all road users.
S
Please refer to Section 5.2.1 of the DSR/FSR for an evaluation of the potential implications of
upgrading the existing R61 between Mthatha and Port Shepstone versus the proposed project, in
relation to the “do nothing” option.
S
7.7
7.7.1
•
Status of current N2 and R61 routes and the new N2:
Status of R61
Why has the R61 not been upgraded? – this would be the alternative route used by most local
people to cut the high toll fees – the current state of the R61 is left so intentionally to promote and
justify a new highway. Whose responsibility is the R61 between Port Edward and Bizana? How
many access points are there now between the Mthamvuna and Mzimvubu that go from the R61 to
the coast? The Southbroom to Port Edward road is not a highway and cannot easily be converted
to one.
It should be noted that certain sections of the existing R61 have been upgraded as recently as
2003.
7.7.2
Status of N2
Worried that once the new road is built the current N2 won’t be maintained. Will the existing N2
and R61 be fenced whilst waiting for the toll road to go ahead? Safety on the N2 needs to be
looked at because there are a lot of accidents. Concerned that the current negligence regarding
the existing roads will get worse if the new road goes ahead. What will be the status of the
existing N2 and what will it be called? – cannot imagine two roads being called N2; whose
responsibility will it be to upgrade the existing road? Must be a priority to upgrade the existing
road to ensure that the economic benefits from the flow of traffic through Mount Frere is
maintained. The alternative road R102 is in poor condition – the same will happen with the R61
and N2. What is going to happen to the existing two roads? - who will maintain the existing N2
and R61?
Noted. Maintenance of the existing N2 and fencing of the existing N2 and R61 routes would be
ongoing.
S
7.7.3
Status of new N2
The proposed road would be a freeway – a freeway would normally have access only via
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
184
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Surely the road would be classified as a freeway? What would be the name of the new road as
there was the existing N2 via Qumbu and Mount Frere.
interchanges.
7.7.4
Definition of a freeway
Clarify the difference between a highway and a freeway. What is the definition of a toll road? – is
it two lanes – that’s not a freeway or a toll road – that’s unacceptable.
The proposed road would be a freeway – a freeway would normally have access only via
interchanges.
S
7.7.5
National Roads in KZN should be taken over by the Province
As in my original statement at the beginning of the N2 Toll process I pointed out that with the proposed
tolling of the N2 this would move KZN into one of the highest tolled provinces in the RSA. As the
proposed tolling of the N2 North / South, KZN would no longer have any national roads untolled that are
worthwhile. SANRAL would no longer have any roads left to toll. To avoid paying large sums of money
to SANRAL to fund Managers, Engineers and office costs for SANRAL and National Roads works in
other provinces, I suggest that the KZN roads department take over the N2, N3 roads that cross KZN and
reap the rich returns for KZN roads which will no doubt be a fair proportion of central government funds
i.e 11% of SANRAL's income.
The traffic specialist has indicated that the statement that SANRAL funds managers, engineers
and office costs for national roads works in other provinces from KZN tolls is incorrect. The tolls
collected in KZN would be applied to the rehabilitation, resealing and maintenance of the relevant
toll roads, the operation and maintenance of the toll plazas, the payment of interest and the
repayment of loans incurred in respect of the N2 North Coast Toll Road, N2 South Coast Toll
Road and the N3 Mariannhill Toll Road and are not used for any other purposes.
E
Freeways require large capital injections for their initial construction, rehabilitation, resealing and
maintenance and are, because of their high volumes and limited access, the primary candidates
for tolling, not just in KZN but in all South African provinces. In Gauteng, for example, 185 km of
upgraded freeways are being upgraded at a cost of R20 billion and the loans incurred to fund this
project will be serviced and repaid form Open Road Tolling as from early 2011. In the Western
Cape, the 184 km N1/N2 Winelands toll project is being planned and is to go to tender in due
course.
With limited funds available from National Treasury allocations, SANRAL has to either do nothing
in respect of large sections of the national road network or use other funding methods such as
tolling to provide the required road infrastructure. Toll financing is, therefore, applied in all parts
of the country where freeways and other limited access roads with high traffic volumes occur.
7.8
7.8.1
•
7.8.1.1
The argument that 'tenderers will be required to develop strategies to deal with public transport on the
proposed toll road' is no answer to the enormous concerns of people travelling into Durban every day.
Not just by taxi but also those who pay fees to people offering places in their private vehicles. The report
does not even mention this important group of commuters! The 'strategy' argument simply ensures that
all discussion on these issues is deferred until such time as the decision to go ahead has been taken!
Promotion of public transport:
Promotion of public transport on the KZN South Coast
If the authorities are genuinely concerned about the traffic growth on this route, they should be
promoting a safe, regular and reliable bus service, particularly from the Umdoni municipal area to
eThekwini – traffic congestion and wear and tear on the roads could be greatly reduced if
commuters could be encouraged not to use their cars; a safe, reliable public transport system for
the South Coast would create more job opportunities, and opportunities for private entrepreneurs
than any toll system would. Focus should be on improving the public transport system rather than
on widening roads. Use of “taxi” is problematic – people tend to use terminology that separates
taxis from public transport.
Have the public transport systems been discussed with
municipalities? Trying to get people out of cars and onto public transport - if busses are cheaper
and bus lanes are provided to speed things up then people will be attracted.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
185
Noted.
S
The traffic specialist has indicated that experience in respect of taxis on toll roads in other parts of
the country has been very positive. SANRAL often prescribes or implements significant (50%)
public transport discounts for taxis and it has to be remembered that the toll tariff is shared by all
the passengers of a taxi which makes the burden significantly lower.
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
7.9
7.9.1
7.9.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Damage caused by heavy vehicles:
Weighbridges
Heavy vehicles damage the roads – are there going to be weighbridges and penalties? How
many heavy vehicles will be on these roads? Need to look at putting in weighbridges to ensure
that this road has a longer lifespan.
Toll fees are not proportionate to the damage caused by heavy vehicles
Why are light vehicles charged R10 and heavy vehicles only R20?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
186
When
Noted. SANRAL would implement relevant policy in terms of weigh bridges and overload control.
S
Noted. See SANRAL’s latest list of plaza toll tariffs applicable on all South Africa’s toll roads (also
refer to Table 3.3, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 8:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to alternative routes, with responses from the EIA project team and
SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
8.1
8.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
•
Response
Provision of alternative routes:
Alternative routes to toll roads are not available or clearly marked there they are available thus
forcing the unsuspecting motorist to pay exorbitant toll fees. Will poorer communities be provided
with alternative routes or will they be forced to use the toll road? No alternative route available to
road users on the KZN South Coast [examples provided]. No alternative route between
Mthatha/Port St Johns to East London – there must always be a “toll-free” alternative for those who
cannot afford it; will have the effect of isolating or increasing the cost of living for a great majority of
people in this area, an action which is unfair and immoral. Seems do be no viable alternative
routes for the motorist. There is major congestion between Winklespruit and Isipingo when one
truck loses its load – without a viable alternative the whole project sinks. Would people be able to
avoid the toll plaza travelling from Thombo/Mthatha to Port St Johns? Without alternative routes it
would only benefit the tourists and not the poor local people. The toll road must avoid the nearDurban area by constructing a new road to bypass the densely populated dormitory areas
[motivation provided].
Will there be an alternative route if one wants to avoid the toll route
between Port Edward and Margate? No safe alternative route from Amanzimtoti to Durban. No
alternative routes between Trafalgar and Port Edward or Trafalgar and Southbroom. No alternative
route from Southbroom to Port Edward.
Impact of traffic diversion on alternative routes:
Residents of ’Toti use the N2 when travelling from one part of Toti to another – if a toll is set up they
will use Kingsway, the only alternative route – it will most certainly not be the case that most of the
future traffic growth will be attracted to the N2 (Section 3.3.3.). Objection to tolling in urban areas
is that the alternative roads are good enough to use and if tolls are put up some people will use
those roads to avoid paying tolls; the other roads get messed up due to heavy trucks using the
residential roads and these roads are not fixed. Alternative roads become death traps. Socioeconomic effects of traffic diversion resulting from tolls and from bypassing towns must be
investigated. The R102 is not capable of handling the increased traffic that would result from
commuters seeking alternative routes – the answer that this would be a temporary situation cannot
be correct. What would SANRAL do about Kingsway if the anticipated growth were not attracted to
the N2? There is a definite potential for an increase in accidents on the alternative routes used by
toll evaders. Kingsway would have to be upgraded. The M35 would be one alternative route to
avoid the mainline plaza – diversion of traffic onto the M35 would adversely affect the quality of life
in the areas through which it passes, bringing with it a deteriorating safety situation, noise and air
pollution, and adding to congestion; the need for improvements would be hastened by traffic
diversion; property values would decline should traffic be diverted from the N2. Further traffic would
make the entrance and exit from business premises on Kingsway extremely dangerous and time
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
187
When
According to SANRAL, captive communities, who would have no available alternative routes,
would be provided with substantial discounts. The open toll system would allow free travel
along certain sections of the proposed toll road.
S
E
Alternative routes on the KZN South Coast include the R620 and R102 (refer to independent
Technical Review Report in Appendix 17 of the FSR).
In terms of current legislation (the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998), SANRAL, with the
Minister’s approval, could declare any specified national road or any specified portion thereof,
including any bridge or tunnel on a national road, to be a toll road. Section 10 of the National
Roads Amendment Act, 1996 (Act No. 24 of 1996) repealed the option to provide an
alternative road to a toll road.
According to SANRAL, an outer, outer ring road from Winklespruit that goes inland was
planned by the provincial Department of Transport in the 1970’s and were known as MR579
and MR577. The latter road has only partially been completed – the final stages are now
about to be completed across the Mgeni River. The southern parts of MR577 and the whole of
MR579 have been abandoned because they are considered no longer economically or
environmentally feasible.
The potential impact of traffic diversion on alternative routes is one of the key issues
investigated and assessed in the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA (refer to Volume 4,
Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR).
S
E
SANRAL has indicated that experience with existing toll roads shows an initial diversion of
traffic but because of generally poorer condition, alignment and geometrics of alternative
routes, the initial diversion returns to the toll road.
Nevertheless, SANRAL has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all possible
alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual impact of
any diverted traffic can therefore be monitored and assessed over time once the toll road is in
operation and quantum of any significant negative impacts could therefore be calculated.
SANRAL has undertaken to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements a overload control strategy
with the provincial and local authorities so that overloading of heavy vehicles and the diversion
of heavy vehicles because of such overloading can be monitored and law enforcement be
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
consuming. Kingsway is very dangerous especially at night and a totally unsuitable option to the
freeway. Trucks will inevitably avoid the tolls and use the small side roads. Do the poorer, inland
communities have a viable alternative access route to Durban? Kingsway is totally unsuitable as it
passes in front of the retirement centre and the only entrance/exit is onto Kingsway [motivation
provided]. Lots of traffic diversion around the toll booths at Shelley Beach – alternatives need to be
considered. Consider big trucks that will be travelling along Kingsway in front of the hospital and
the access for people to emergency services. SANRAL is not interested in maintenance on
secondary roads as it is a municipal responsibility. Human nature to forget other roads if the new
one is built. Access to schools, churches, local business, hospitals, and retirement villages will be
very difficult as Kingsway is already congested and access could become virtually impossible.
Concerned about access to Kingsway from feeder road via Ipahla Road – already hard enough in
the mornings. Proposal does not address any of the adverse affects on Kingsway / Amanzimtoti /
Doonside / Winklespruit especially by heavy vehicles, minibus taxis, LDVs. Since the installation of
speed humps, for safety reasons, the existing Warner Beach and Winklespruit residential roads will
not be able to manage additional heavy traffic. Kingsway Road cannot cope when there is an
accident on the freeway and cars are diverted along Kingsway – it is virtually impossible to access
Kingsway at this time – the proposed toll road would create a nightmare. Against more vehicles
and trucks in Kingsway; against noise and more pollution in the area. Going to have to pay
increased rates for the improvements on Kingsway – move the toll road further south. Take the
potential benefit of improved road safety out of the proposal because negative impacts will result
from diverted traffic onto the R102 – there are kids and bicycles along the R102. many people
have been killed on the alternative route via Isipingo through Amanzimtoti and Umgababa. Major
congestion and safety hazards will appear. Areas along Kingsway cannot handle extra traffic
volumes [motivation provided]. It will result in serious accidents and possible deaths on Kingsway.
Lack of traffic lights on Kingsway of concern. Huge problems resulted in the Nottingham Road
Region where trucks truck drivers who pocket toll money and use the alternative route are
frequently involved in fatal accidents.
There are many heavy loads and taxis on already
overcrowded roads claiming more lives every year. Doubt whether the use of provincial roads as
alternative routes will be short term. Traffic diversion onto Kingsway will have serious ramifications
for access to the schools in this area.
When
applied to mitigate this impact.
Insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit is concerned, the traffic specialist has indicated that implementation of the traffic
diversion mitigation measures proposed, namely a change of the toll strategy for local users by
providing Local User Discounts in order to achieve equitable toll payments per km of toll road
section used (using Electronic Toll Collection), would be capable of reducing the potential
traffic diversion significantly (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR), provided
that the toll tariffs per km are set at the correct levels. According to the traffic specialist, this
statement can be made with a high degree of confidence in view of the accuracy achieved in
predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of other South African toll roads with the
methodology used.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in the traffic specialist
report, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract, the
Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
It should be noted that the success of the traffic diversion mitigation measures would be linked
to charging the correct toll tariffs. Should the monitoring and review of the performance of the
Concessionaire indicate unacceptable traffic diversion, SANRAL would have to be in a
contractual position to then require the Concessionaire to lower its toll tariffs for local users.
8.2.1
Traffic diversion onto toll road when there are accidents
What will happen if an accident, blocks the R102, will the traffic, then diverted onto the Toll road, be able
to pass for free?
The traffic specialist has indicated that this is not current practice in South Africa, since the
availability of an alternative road is no longer a legal requirement.
E
8.2.2
Coverage of impact on alternative routes in DEIR
The absolute lack of concern about safety shown by the Consultants who have compiled the Summary.
Show us a single report in the 4 Volumes that documents very comprehensibly and brings attention to
this very import issue of what we see almost daily, the accidents along Kingsway and show us one table
that lists the time and ultimately their frustrations of how entering and leaving their homes at peak times
is already a major mission.
According to the traffic specialist, significant additional road capacity would be provided in the
N2 corridor by the planned addition of a lane in each direction of the N2 between Isipingo and
Amanzimtoti. The table below indicates, at a freeway lane capacity of 2000 vehicles/hr and at
a Kingsway Road lane capacity (one direction) of 900 vehicles/hour, how the capacity of the
north-south roads in the N2 corridor between, for example, Dickens Road and the Amanzimtoti
interchange would change.
E
Traffic flow follows the road of least resistance (like water). As traffic volumes in the above-
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
188
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
mentioned corridor grow, there is therefore, with the additional capacity on offer on the N2 no
doubt that future traffic flow and, therefore, road safety in the corridor would be improved by
the addition of a lane on the N2. Without such an additional lane, the N2 in this corridor would
increasingly operate under unsafe stop-go traffic conditions and, therefore, much longer
journey times.
N2 Dickens Road – Amanzimtoti section (in one direction of travel)
Road capacity (one direction)
Without N2 lane addition
With one N2 lane addition per
direction
N2 section
4 000 veh/hour
6 000 veh/hour
Kingsway Road
900 veh/hour
900 veh/hour
Total capacity
4 900 veh/hour
6 900 veh/hour
SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on
all possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The
actual impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time
should the proposed toll highway be implemented and the quantum of any significant negative
impacts could therefore be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant
impacts should they occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy
with the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy
vehicles can be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
8.2.2.1
In my previous submission I pointed out the potentially fatal consequences to individual patients
attempting to access Kingsway hospital from Kingsway road should this toll go through there will
inevitably be an increase in traffic on Kingsway road as people and heavy vehicles attempt to evade the
tolled road there is already a problem with access to the hospital at peak hours this will be compounded
by the effect of the toll I was not exaggerating when I said that people will die because of delays in
getting to the hospital caused by excess traffic on Kingsway. I cannot find any reference in your report to
the impact of the toll on secondary roads within Amanzimtoti and in particular the effect on the hospital.
Noted. Refer to response provided above.
E
8.2.2.2
The DEIR states “The highly probable impact of traffic diversion on the N2 Prospecton - Southbroom
section is assessed to be of medium and high intensity and significance during the construction and
operational phases, respectively. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the traffic
diversion impact to LOW significance during the construction and operational phases.”
I strongly contend that the mitigation measures to prevent traffic diversion as being totally inadequate.
Any tolling of the N2 will result in traffic diversion resulting in an unbearable traffic situation. The traffic
noise is already unacceptable and will only be made worse.
Insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit is concerned, the proposed traffic diversion mitigation measures involve a change
of the toll strategy for local users by granting Local User Discounts in order to achieve
equitable toll payments per km of toll road section used. This would be achieved by means of
Electronic Toll Collection (ETC). These mitigation measures would be capable of reducing the
potential traffic diversion significantly, as indicated in the traffic specialist report (Volume 4,
Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR), provided that the toll tariffs per km are set at the correct
levels. According to the traffic specialist, this statement can be made with a high degree of
confidence in view of the accuracy achieved in predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of
other South African toll roads with the methodology used, as described in the above-mentioned
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
189
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
report.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract, the
Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
8.2.2.3
In the Pennington area alone increased traffic along the R102 will require the installation of traffic lights
on two junctions. Who will take responsibility for this? How many accidents will have to occur before
something is done? For strategists and 'experts' to ignore such obviously negative consequences and
risks (and there are numerous such examples along the South Coast that can be quoted) is nothing
short of irresponsible. Surely this represents a concerted intent not to highlight these negative aspects of
this entire project.
The EIA team and traffic specialist reject any allegation of “a concerted intent not to highlight
… negative aspects …”. It should be noted that the traffic specialist report (Volume 4,
Appendix 11) and Volume 1, Draft/Final EIR actually highlight that significant traffic diversion
by local users of the N2 Winklespruit to Hibberene section would occur if the toll tariffs shown
in the FSR were to be charged to local users.
E
The traffic specialist report recommends reduced tariffs to local users related to their distance
of travel on the N2 to ensure that they, indeed, perceive a benefit from using the toll road
rather than the alternative route.
Insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit is concerned, the proposed traffic diversion mitigation measures involve a change
of the toll strategy for local users by granting Local User Discounts in order to achieve
equitable toll payments per km of toll road section used. This would be achieved by means of
Electronic Toll Collection (ETC). These mitigation measures would be capable of reducing the
potential traffic diversion significantly, as indicated in the traffic specialist report, provided that
the toll tariffs per km are set at the correct levels. According to the traffic specialist, this
statement can be made with a high degree of confidence in view of the accuracy achieved in
predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of other South African toll roads with the
methodology used, as described in the above-mentioned report.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract, the
Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
8.2.3
New shopping centres in Amanzimtoti will push more traffic onto alternative routes
Amanzimtoti has just had the Value shopping Centre (Moss Kolnick Dr) built & will shortly have the
Arbourtown shopping centre completed next to it. These two shopping malls will certainly add to the
traffic on Kingsway as cash strapped commuters keep would be toll fees for shopping / petrol costs.
The traffic specialist has indicated that, if more local traffic on the R102 were being created by
new shopping centres, the addition of lanes on the N2 would become even more necessary for
the future.
E
Insofar as the potential of significant traffic diversion along the N2 between Prospecton and
Winklespruit is concerned, the proposed traffic diversion mitigation measures involve a change
of the toll strategy for local users by granting Local User Discounts in order to achieve
equitable toll payments per km of toll road section used. This would be achieved by means of
Electronic Toll Collection. These mitigation measures would be capable of reducing the
potential traffic diversion significantly, as indicated in the traffic specialist report (Volume 4,
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
190
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Appendix 11), provided that the toll tariffs per km were set at the correct levels. According to
the traffic specialist, this statement can be made with a high degree of confidence in view of
the accuracy achieved in predicting traffic reaction to tolling in respect of other South African
toll roads with the methodology used, as described in the above-mentioned report.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the abovementioned specialist study, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT
contract, the Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review
of the performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
Furthermore, it should be noted that the recent completion of the Arbour Town Mall and
associated developments west of the N2 between the Moss Kolnik Drive and Dickens Road
interchanges would create an additional alternative for traffic from the Moss Kolnik Interchange
(or further south) travelling to/from Durban.
This alternative (Arbour Town
Street/Oppenheimer/Kynoch/Old Main Road) would be slightly longer in length and travel time
than the R102 between the Moss Kolnik and Prospecton interchanges. To the extent that the
Arbour Town Street/Oppenheimer/Kynoch/Old Main Road alternative route may attract some
of the remaining diverted R102 traffic (approximately 100 vehicles per day) after
implementation of the recommended traffic diversion mitigation measures, it would be further
reducing the potential residual traffic diversion impact on the R102 (residual impact assessed
to be of LOW significance).
8.2.3.1
It should be noted that because of the expanding Southgate Industrial complex, traffic problems have
already necessitated the deployment of traffic officers and traffic lights, and the completion of the Arbour
Crossing Shoppinf Centre will hardly improve the situation.
Refer to response to Item 8.2.2 above. Also, it should be noted that the recent completion of
the Arbour Town Mall and associated developments west of the N2 between the Moss Kolnik
Drive and Dickens Road interchanges would create an additional alternative for traffic from the
Moss Kolnik Interchange (or further south) travelling to/from Durban. This alternative (Arbour
Town Street/Oppenheimer/Kynoch/Old Main Road) would be slightly longer in length and travel
time than the R102 between the Moss Kolnik and Prospecton interchanges. To the extent that
the Arbour Town Street/Oppenheimer/Kynoch/Old Main Road alternative route may attract
some of the remaining diverted R102 traffic (approximately 100 vehicles per day) after
implementation of the recommended traffic diversion mitigation measures, it would be further
reducing the potential residual traffic diversion impact on the R102 (residual impact assessed
to be of LOW significance).
E
8.2.4
Traffic diversion on KZN lower South Coast
Regarding the holiday season, the existing side roads, such as the coastal road from Southbroom to Margate,
will become an even more congested nightmare than it is already. What about the trucks that will inevitably avoid
the tolls and use the small side roads all year round?
It should be noted that no new toll plazas would be introduced on the Lower South Coast and
that tolling would continue to take place at the Oribi mainline and ramp plazas.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
191
In order to safeguard the public against the possible increased traffic diversion that may result
from increases in toll tariffs at the Oribi plazas above the inflation rate, the following mitigation
measure is proposed in the traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11): “If toll tariffs at
the Oribi mainline and the various ramp plazas on the N2 South Coast toll section between
Hibberdene and Southbroom are proposed to be increased in real terms in the BOT tender, the
Concessionaire should be required to prove to SANRAL that the traffic diversion after the
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
increase would not be higher than the diversion predicted to occur at revenue-maximising tariff
levels”.
The following measure is proposed in the traffic specialist report to be part of an appropriate
monitoring and review programme: “If a decision is taken to increase tariffs at the Oribi
mainline plaza and/or the various ramp plazas on the South Coast Toll Road or if a decision is
taken to charge revenue-maximising tariffs above the “high” levels in the Final Scoping Report
on any toll section, “before” and “after” roadside interviews should be undertaken to determine
whether the attraction rates associated with revenue-maximising tariffs are, at the very least,
being achieved.” These measures will be incorporated into the Draft EMP.
8.2.5
Traffic diversion into rural areas to north of Amanzimtoti
The inevitable result of tolling will result in the Sobonakhona Traditional Council's local roads being used as
alternative roads by vehicles bypassing the toll gates.
8.3
8.3.1
•
8.3.1.1
The R102 main road is not in a fit state of repair for the normal traffic flow using it at present, how could it
ever cope with a vast increase of traffic volume as the result of drivers avoiding the toll? Referring to our
neck of the woods, please note that the Umkomaas section of the R102 has been closed to traffic for over a
year. The Kelso bridge has been out of operation for more than 6 months and many other serious cave-ins
have occurred and remain unrepaired, along this stretch of road between Umkomaas and Kelso.
Upgrading of alternative routes:
Upgrade of R102 on KZN South Coast
Has the present condition of the R102 on the lower South Coast of KZN been taken into account? –
will this road be adequately upgraded to provide a safe route for traffic?
Refer further to responses provided under Item 8.2.2 above.
E
Refer to response to Item 8.2.4 above.
S
E
Noted. Refer further to response to Item 8.2.3 above.
E
It should be noted that the R102 past Umkomaas and the bridge en-route to Pennington from
Scottburgh are provincial road responsibilities.
Also, SANRAL has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all possible
alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual impact of
any diverted traffic can therefore be monitored and assessed over time once the toll road is in
operation and quantum of any significant negative impacts could therefore be calculated.
SANRAL has undertaken to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements a overload control strategy
with the provincial and local authorities so that overloading of heavy vehicles and the diversion
of heavy vehicles because of such overloading can be monitored and law enforcement be
applied to mitigate this impact.
8.3.1.2
8.3.2
When will the R102 be re-opened past Umkomaas and the bridge rebuilt en-route to Pennington from
Scottburgh? Will local, urban and rural residents, be given free access around these blockages?
Upgrade of R102/Kingsway on KZN Upper South Coast
Kingsway would not be able to carry the heavy traffic diversion and ratepayers will also have to
keep the road intact – another environmental burden. Municipal departments cannot even
maintain fauna and flora on the roadside. Kingsway is currently loaded with pot-holes – with extra
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
192
Refer to response provided above.
E
Refer to response to Item 8.3.1.1 above.
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
traffic it will be a disaster. The alternative routes would require upgrading and it is requested that
a brief description of the situation of these upgrades be provided and who is to pay the City.
Kingsway will deteriorate rapidly. Rates will increase to cover the cost of maintenance of the
roads while property prices will decrease. It is almost impossible to widen Kingsway due to the
hilly nature and well-established homes alongside this part of the road. Expenses for repairs and
upgrades of adjoining roads will need to be deducted from the revenue received from the toll,
making the whole exercise counter-productive. What is going to be done about the impact on a
road such as Kingsway? There is a section at the golf course where it is physically impossible to
widen that road and there will be traffic 24/7 bumper to bumper.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
193
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 9:
Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to tolling, with responses from the EIA project team and SANRAL, as
appropriate
No.
9.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Rationale for tolling at a national level:
Tolling the financially burdened motorist is a lazy way of securing income. The upgrading
should be covered under the monies received by SANRAL from Government – the excuse that
SANRAL is battling to get sufficient monies from the fiscus is unacceptable – they should
justify extra monies and not take the easy way out by tolling; perhaps there is a profit motive.
Well-maintained main roads should link all major towns and cities, enabling motorists and
other road users to travel freely without being subjected to toll fees. There is money in the
national budget for infrastructure – where is it going? Why doesn’t government just build and
maintain the roads without tolling?
When
Noted.
S
E
9.1.1
The experts yesterday explained to me that the tax pool was too small to finance this type of
infrastructure hence the need to Toll! Not according to Trevor Manual (I quote from his speech to the
National Assembly on 18 November 2008), "We have the fiscal space to protect spending on
infrastructure and social services, because it is these investments that will ensure that we grow
faster when indeed the storm has abated." So, either the government can afford to build the road
with NO tolls -- in which case apply for the funding to do so, or they cannot. If they cannot -- neither
can the public -- more so as more job losses become evident..
According to SANRAL it is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude without
using toll financing. The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate needs of
the society. Indeed, government policy is to prioritise social investment in education, health,
housing, etc. and such large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not readily
available from Treasury. Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation provides for
alternative funding mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such alternatives must
be explored. According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road funding which has,
over the years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South Africa’s roads are tolled.
E
9.1.2
Draft EIR 2.2.1 National and Regional Context: This clause defines National and Regional Roads,
as “National road networks are primarily designed to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of
people, goods and services over medium to long distances between economic centres”, whilst “at a
regional level, the provincial and local road networks provide the necessary linkages to the local
communities.” The rationale for tolling relates to national roads.
The N2 on the upper south coast serves as both a national and a regional road, although the vast
majority of users on the most northern section use the road in a regional context, for access
between Durban and its southern districts. Thus the rationale for tolling at a national level is not
relevant, and it is totally wrong to collect tolls from motorists who are using a regional route.
Refer to the response provided above.
E
9.2
9.2.1
•
SANRAL has indicated that the fuel levy was historically introduced as a dedicated road fund as
was used for that purpose. However, in April 1987 fuel levies were incorporated into the Central
Revenue Fund. Revenues raised through a particular tax cannot be preserved for a single prespecified use; instead they go into a central fund and are then allocated across competing uses via
the budgetary process. Thus, fuel levies are not automatically accrued to SANRAL.
S
E
Fuel levy:
Fuel levy
Government steals the fuel levy and puts it into other things – go back to the old system of
using that money to fix the roads. Funding via the fuel levy should be introduced – this is by
far the most equitable way of raising funds – SANRAL should be actively canvassing the
government in this regard. To avoid the disparity which the tolling of roads will create on all
affected communities, it is suggested that a road levy, added to the fuel price, be introduced so
that all road users are proportionately burdened with the cost of expansion to our national
roads [motivation provided]. The road should be funded by the fuel levy [motivation provided].
The upgrading should come from the present taxes and levies being paid anyway – people do
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
194
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
not have any more money to give. The DSR states that SANRAL no longer received funds
from the fuel levy while the SANRAL Act states that funds are provided through the fuel levy –
do not lie. Surely there was another R26 billion collected in terms of the fuel levy, customs and
excise, etc. in 2003, 2004 and so on? – why do they have to toll a road to build a new road that
is going to cost R4 billion? Eastern Cape was the poorest province and cannot afford to pay
toll fees. Doesn’t SANRAL benefit from the fuel levy?
9.2.1.1
I suggest that SANRAL with its expertise act as advisors to Ethekwini Municipality and that the
municipality take full responsibility for the roads within its boundaries. The Central Government
should fund the maintenance and further development of these roads and related infrastructure. The
excess funds received on the road levy are more than adequate to cover these costs as well as
much of countries requirements regarding the historical roads.
According to SANRAL it is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude without
using toll financing. The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate needs of
the society. Indeed, government policy is to prioritise social investment in education, health,
housing, etc. and such large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not readily
available from Treasury. Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation provides for
alternative funding mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such alternatives must
be explored. According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road funding which has,
over the years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South Africa’s roads are tolled.
E
SANRAL has indicated that the fuel levy was historically introduced as a dedicated road fund as
was used for that purpose. However, in April 1987 fuel levies were incorporated into the Central
Revenue Fund. Revenues raised through a particular tax cannot be preserved for a single prespecified use; instead they go into a central fund and are then allocated across competing uses via
the budgetary process. Thus, fuel levies are not automatically accrued to SANRAL.
9.2.2
9.3
Fuel levy is more equitable than tolling
A fuel levy, managed effectively, is far more equitable than the introduction of toll plazas as a
solution to South Africa’s road problems; huge road works and developments between the
areas south and north of Durban have been financed with no toll plazas and if anyone has the
capacity to pay, it’s those living to the north of Durban.
•
Excessive taxation:
All the taxpayers in the country have paid for the road – why must there be a toll gate to pay
extra? What is the difference between the licensing paid on cars and toll fees? Already
sufficient tolls to pay for roads. Enough money is paid via income tax for roads – used
correctly it would not be necessary to add another burden. People are complaining that they
have to pay so much tax and they are unemployed – even to find a job people will have to pay
at the toll gates – the benefits of the toll road need to compared to the suffering of the poor
people. People are already paying tax to SARS, rates and taxes, fuel levy, road accident fund
– how much more must the public pay?
9.3.1
The property tax in Durban is already the highest in the Country.
9.4
•
Insufficient information on toll fees:
How much will it cost and who will pay for it? – by comparing the congested traffic of the old
Marine Drive from Port Shepstone to Margate with the sparse traffic on the existing N2 toll road
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Noted.
S
E
Noted.
S
Noted.
E
A possible range of toll tariffs associated with each of the proposed mainline toll plazas has been
included in Section 3.5.2 of the FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR. According to SANRAL,
S
195
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
it is clear that motorists are already rejecting the current toll fees. Ridiculous that SANRAL
was unable to give the cost of toll fees. Cost of the toll fees is a major concern. Why are so
many plazas planned for such a short route? Are there any indications what the toll fees will
be, per vehicle, passing through the Isipingo toll plaza? Is it correct that this road will have the
highest toll fees in South Africa? – what toll fees are being looked at? What would the local
people from Libode pay at Ndwalane if they went to Port St Johns? Disclosing the toll fees
would not prejudice the tender process. How much will the toll be from Port Edward to
Durban? What assurance can be given that that is what it is going to cost?
9.5
9.5.1
9.5.1.1
•
SANRAL, the National Roads Act, Unsolicited Proposal Process and Intent to Toll
process:
Unsolicited Proposal Process
Inflated cost of R4 billion supports the fact that using these figures, SANRAL could persuade
the Consortium to go along with SANRAL’s dishonest claim that the original bid was unsolicited
– we challenge them to prove otherwise. Lack of clarity about government policy in respect of
tolling existing roads and manner in which unsolicited bids are made in respect of new toll
roads. Tender process is flawed as the original scheme developer remains the current
scheme developer. The proposed road is clearly not in the “interests” of the Upper South
Coast residents. Since this a test case, should this toll road go ahead, anyone can decide to
submit an unsolicited bid based purely on a profit motive by gains from tolls from an unrelated
area of road. It is stated that the Consortium will play no part in this EIA process – how can
alternatives and design changes realistically be considered if the applicant (and its design
team) will play no part in this process? Traffic measured from Hibberdene to Winklespruit and
from Winklespruit to Isipingo represent almost double the total traffic of all road users using the
rest of the road from Hibberdene to East London – since it is clear that the proposed road is
not in the interest of the members of the public at the meeting, it is proposed that in order to
prove that the N2 is in the interest of the public a referendum is set up to test the interest of the
public and that the outcome of the toll road be determined in this way. When does the tender
process happen? Information required on the principles and business plan for the project.
Who conceived the idea of the toll road and who were the beneficiaries? Is there a definite
economic benefit to be provided before the concession is granted? How is the national
Department of Transport involved in the project? Is this a public private partnership? – which
stage is the project in? This should be a de novo process so the tendering and bidding
process should begin from scratch as well. Can this go ahead with the history of “insider
trading” with parties involved? Does the Wild Coast Consortium Bid still stand? Is it possible
for the public to obtain a list of shareholders of the toll company in the interest of transparency?
Don’t think the group of engineering companies are particularly concerned about the welfare of
people in the Transkei – this is a money-making scheme. Who proposed these tolls?
Not much is said about the fact that the whole project is based on an Unsolicited Proposal. I had a
discussion with a number of Consultants on 18 November 2008 at Amanzimtoti Library. The only
reference I could find was on page v of the Executive Summary and the following comment on page
16 of the Appendix 13 on the Economic Report:“The scheme developers identified a total of 31
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
the possible ranges of toll tariffs given are based on typical tariffs on existing similar toll roads in
South Africa and as such are highly speculative. Tariffs are usually based on the length of toll road
that is used. These tariffs also do NOT include regional or local discounts or frequent user
discounts. It should be further noted that the possible toll tariff ranges provide some indication only
as to what the potential toll tariffs at the various mainline toll plazas could be and are based on
2006 prices. Ramp toll tariffs are determined on a comparable basis. The actual toll tariffs to be
levied if the toll highway is put into operation would be subject to a competitive tender process and
the Declaration of a Toll road process, including the negotiation and determining of discounts
before it can finally be approved and promulgated by the Minister of Transport.
Section 3.1.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume1 of the Draft/Final EIR discusses the Unsolicited
Proposal Process in detail. Aspects relating to the tolling strategy, toll sections and toll tariffs are
addressed in Section 3.5. A possible range of toll tariffs associated with each of the proposed
mainline toll plazas has been included in Section 3.5.2 of the FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final
EIR. According to SANRAL, the possible ranges of toll tariffs given are based on typical tariffs on
existing similar toll roads in South Africa and as such are highly speculative. Tariffs are usually
based on the length of toll road that is used. These tariffs also do NOT include regional or local
discounts or frequent user discounts. It should be further noted that the possible toll tariff ranges
provide some indication only as to what the potential toll tariffs at the various mainline toll plazas
could be and are based on 2006 prices. Ramp toll tariffs are determined on a comparable basis.
The actual toll tariffs to be levied if the toll highway is put into operation would be subject to a
competitive tender process and the Declaration of a Toll road process, including the negotiation
and determining of discounts before it can finally be approved and promulgated by the Minister of
Transport.
S
It should be noted that all previous studies were commissioned jointly by SANRAL and the
N2WCC. The N2WCC’s obligations in terms of the development agreement with SANRAL were
carried out during the scheme development that took place between 2000 and the issuing of the
previous Record of Decision (RoD) on 3 December 2003. No new agreement has been signed
between the two parties and the N2WCC will play no further part in this EIA process.
It should be noted that the purpose of an EIA is not to solicit approval or otherwise of a proposed
project from I&APs, but to determine the issues and concerns relating to the project and assess the
potential impact of the proposed project and feasible alternative thereto on the receiving
environment.
Once the proposed project is put out to tender, the shareholders of the potential concession
companies would be made public.
Please note that Section 3.1.2 of the DSR/FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR discusses the
Unsolicited Proposal Process in detail.
196
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
9.5.1.2
Rumor has it that big construction companies like, Grinaker Construction, has financial interest in
the construction of the proposed N2 Toll Road here at Amanzimtoti. I have already objected to this
proposal, because it is incomprehensible to accept a Toll Road in the middle of a residential area.
Amanzimtoti is divided by the N2 with Schools etc on both sides on the N2. I would like to contact
these firms, but I need to get the proper information in order to peruse the problem.
Detailed descriptions of the proposed construction activities along the proposed toll highway are
provided in Chapter 4, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
E
9.5.1.3
Legal status of this proposal: Given that the original proposal was an unsolicited bid by a consortium
of private industry, the question, previously posed many times, still has not been adequately
answered – by what legal mandate does SANRAL spend taxpayers money on promoting a private
business venture? This question needs to be taken up in court if SANRAL continues to pursue this
project.
Noted. Section 22 read with Section 21 of the ECA requires that where the Minister identifies an
activity which in his opinion may have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment no
person “shall take” or “cause such an activity to be undertaken” unless that person has obtained
written authorisation. Accordingly there is no doubt that unless SANRAL obtains written
authorisation it may not “undertake” or “cause such an activity to be undertaken”. There is also no
need or procedure for SANRAL to “prove” that it may bring the application.
E
different road sections on the proposed Route. These are defined in Table 1. For the purpose of this
report a further five Sections on the existing roads between Mthatha and Port Shepstone were
defined.”
When
It should be noted that the then Minister Van Schalkwyk’s decision (dated 9 December 2004) on
the appeals against the previous environmental authorisation of the proposed project specifically
states: “The Minister’s decision does not preclude a new application for environmental
authorisation for the construction of the N2 Wild Coast toll road being submitted.”
9.5.1.4
9.5.2
Uscata believes that the alleged motivation for the building of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Road
between Durban and East London as an unsolicited bid by a private consortium is not true. Initially,
SANRAL tried to bulldoze the N2 Toll Road project through the EIA system on this basis. Under the
circumstances Uscata believes that SANRAL should prove that it was an unsolicited bid on the part
of the “Wild Coast Consortium”. With concern Uscata has noted that as soon as difficulties arose
when efforts were made to negotiate with the consortium, that SANRAL stepped in to save the
situation by becoming a “co-applicant”, subsequently claiming that the Wild Coast Consortium had
no claim over the project. However, elsewhere SANRAL originally stated that “the Consortium
initially funded 50% of the costs of the original surveying and consultancy costs.”
SANRAL now state that the Consortium will not be given any preferential considerations if and when
the proposed project is approved. Uscata wonders how this will be possible if money is still owed to
the Consortium!
SANRAL has indicated that it rejects such fallacious and malicious allegations and has reiterated
that the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, No. 7 of 1998
provides that SANRAL is the sole custodian and “owner” in title of national road reserves. Hence
any negotiations in respect of any development or other aspects of national roads can only be with
or through SANRAL. The details of the policy governing “Unsolicited Proposals” (there is no “bid”)
is included in Section 3.1.2 of the DSR/FSR (as well as Appendix 1) and Volume 1 of the
Draft/Final EIR, and is available on SANRAL’s website www.nra.co.za.
National Roads Act
There is no indication that the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal has committed to support this
proposal – this is considered a fatal flaw. The withdrawal of any exemptions is clearly
unacceptable. Clear commitment of SANRAL’s stated policy of granting “exemptions,
restrictions and suspensions” required.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from each Premier in whose province the intended toll road would be situated, etc.,
would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL
and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
SANRAL has stated categorically that the proposal received from the N2 Wild Coast Consortium
was and is being developed in terms of this policy. Refer further to response to Item 9.5.1 above.
197
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
9.5.3
Declaration of a toll road and the Intent to Toll process
How can SANRAL show the position of toll roads when these have not gone through a
process of public participation or is this an indication of prior decisions being made from which
they are not going to change? [examples provided]. Who would set the toll fees – SANRAL
or the concessionaire? Do people have the right to reject the toll plazas? Challenge the
Intent to Toll process as being totally unconstitutional and challenge the Minister and SANRAL
that they can take any road and declare it a national road [motivation provided]. Is it correct
that the Minister [of Environmental Affairs and Tourism] does not take into consideration the
toll costs and concerns at having to pay?
Noted. Refer further to response to Item 9.5.1 above.
S
9.5.4
SANRAL policy
Lack of assessment of the social and economic aspects is in contravention of the SANRAL
policy and its environmental commitment – a social and economic assessment may
provisionally show that there may not be a social and economic need for this particular road.
Social and economic specialist studies were undertaken as part of the Impact Assessment phase
of the EIA process. The EIA team and SANRAL have been advised that “tolling” and the
“structuring of toll fees” fall outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEAT
and the Appeal Authority. To deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra
vires and unlawful as the procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll
fees are prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (the Act) and must take place in
accordance therewith. The Act itself specifically requires a public participation process for the
Declaration of a Toll road. To the extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments and
representations made during the public participation process undertaken in terms of the Act,
aggrieved parties are entitled to review the decision. It was advised that issues and concerns
relating to tolling and associated socio-economic impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but
be merely captured in the relevant documentation and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for
consideration during the Declaration of Toll road process.
S
According to SANRAL, its policy is not designed to maximize profits, but rather to balance the
needs of the road users (by way of an equitable toll) with the needs of the private sector (by way of
profit). SANRAL has indicated that all national road assets are owned by SANRAL (SANRAL has
to take physical title to such land in terms of legislation). A Concessionaire would merely take
custody of the land in order to carry out its obligations in terms of the concession contract.
Ownership of the assets are retained by SANRAL. The road would be upgraded and maintained
over the agreed concession period and then handed back to SANRAL at no cost and in good
condition. Annual increases in toll tariffs are usually linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The road would still require maintenance and further upgrades.
S
According to SANRAL, the perception that the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal would fund the
remainder of the proposed project is incorrect. The proposed toll highway provides for a total of 7
mainline toll plazas and 24 ramp toll plazas, including the existing Oribi mainline plaza. SANRAL
has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking a number of
considerations into account. These include:
S
E
9.6
9.7
•
•
Operation of a toll road after 30 year concession period:
It cannot be believed that such an open-ended statement can be made such as “the
concession period may be 30 years, or such a period as offered by tenderers … the entire
asset reverts back to the state”. What would happen once the construction companies got
back their monies used to construct the road? What will happen when government takes back
the road as they are likely to increase the toll tariffs. What is the life span of the toll plazas?
Toll plazas would remain on the road forever; who’s to say the prices won’t go up?. After a
certain period of time, once the upgrades have been paid for, would the toll gates be
removed?
Cross-subsidisation:
Imposes an immoral cross-subsidisation that the residents of the KZN Upper South Coast will
have to bear for a road they will never use [motivation provided]. Summary of key problems focus
to a large extent (at least 90%) on the southern portion between Port and East London whilst only
10% is listed on the Port Edward-Isipingo section, but the average daily traffic on the southern part
is only 14% of this northern portion. Reason for the proposed tollgates from Isipingo to East
London is for a new highway to be built in the Transkei area – why must KZN residents pay for a
road that the everyday person has no immediate access to, and worse cannot see the results or
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
•
198
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
benefits thereof. Wish to promote business and profit and profit at the expense of the people and
businesses in KZN because sufficient returns cannot be extracted from users of the actual
upgraded section of road through the Transkei – upgrade proposed between Port Shepstone and
Durban is minor and a very small percentage of the total cost of the project – unfair and immoral
to expect users in this area to pay for an upgrade approximately 300 km away. If a new road is to
be constructed from Port Edward to Port St Johns it should be able to exist on a stand-alone basis
and not by tolling the entire N2 Durban to East London route – the proposal is clearly not in the
national interests. The toll road cannot be viable unless paid for by the residents of the Upper
South Coast – why should the few be prejudiced? Meeting attendees were unanimous in their
condemnation of the proposed strategy of the funding of the road through the Eastern Cape by
means of toll fees extracted from the residents of the Upper South Coast. The Toti section of road
should be a separate entity and the cost of any improvements covered by normal funds. Revenue
based on cross subsidisation cannot be justified. The statement that the motorist would pay only
for the extent of the road that is used does not reflect the abnormal revenue that would be
generated in the Greater Amanzimtoti area – where is the saving in road user costs referred to?
What would be the contribution of the mining activity to the road cost? Opposed to tolling the
existing N2 in the Upper South Coast region and in particular the Greater Amanzimtoti Area, to
finance any roads in the Eastern Cape. Construction of this road, as a toll road, is not viable
unless there is a toll at Isipingo and off ramps at the various interchanges on the Upper South
Coast – this makes a joke of the principle of user pays and amounts to nothing other than highway
robbery of those commuters living in this part of the world [motivation provided]. 19% of the traffic
in the Eastern Cape has 76% of the road, while the 16 km from Winklespruit to Isipingo has 47%
of the traffic – agree that the stretch from Hibberdene to Isipingo needs widening to cater for traffic
for the next 25 years, but with a daily traffic flow of 36 000 to 68 000 cars per day enough tax is
being generated from these road users to cover the cost of upgrading without tolling – it is
highway robbery bordering on extortion of the working class. Idea that poorer workers from the
Isipingo/Pennington areas must fund a road in the Transkei is absolutely preposterous. While the
concept of cross-subsidisation is understood, it is believed that this will not be understood or
accepted by the local Black communities – the idea that Zulu money will uplift Xhosa communities
will not sit well with these people. The vast majority of traffic north from Margate and south from
Durban is business or private in nature and is not interested in going further south to the Wild
Coast or East London – yet this is the traffic SANRAL will take toll money from to finance a road
they will not use. The proposed toll gate at Isipingo is not appropriate because the benefits,
including the shorter travel distance, will accrue mainly in the Eastern Cape; the potential and
perceived benefits as mentioned are not of the magnitude that justifies extra tolling within the
province, nor make it acceptable to the road user – the Provincial Treasury of KwaZulu-Natal is
thus unable to support the additional tolling of the N2 between the Oribi Plaza and Durban
International Airport. It is known that no toll road is financially viable unless 20 000 vehicles pass
through one of its main toll gates – the only gate that will have these numbers is at Isipingo. KZN
is part of South Africa and not only the people of KZN will use that road. Most of the construction
jobs for the EC road will also go to the people in the EC – why is there a toll plaza at Isipingo?
Road was being built for mining and the burden was being carried by the Upper South Coast.
Will the people in Transkei also be contributing to this road? - three quarters of the road is down
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
•
•
•
199
When
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
For instance one cannot levy a toll tariff at the proposed Isipingo toll plaza (urban or commuter
trip) to cater for a trip all the way to Margate, a “rural trip”. Hence rural toll plazas are usually
between 80 to 100 km apart and urban toll plazas less than 20 km apart (5 to 15 km). This
provides a mechanism whereby equitable toll tariffs, commensurate with the trip length, can
be set with the “open toll system” common to South Africa. Closed toll systems are expensive
to implement and operate and are therefore not very common throughout the world.
Electronic toll collection (ETC) may change this in the future.
Toll tariffs are based on the relative benefit that a user would theoretically experience when a
section of toll road is used. This benefit is derived from the difference between road user
costs incurred before (“do nothing”) and after implementation of the toll road. The price
elasticity of toll tariffs is very carefully modelled, as they are sensitive to variation as all
commodities (not utilities) are where the user has a choice. Most utilities (such as water and
electricity) are fixed at prices that are sometimes exorbitant because they usually are
monopolies and the prices tend to be fairly inelastic.
The toll revenue generated at a specific toll plaza may be perceived to “subsidize” other
sections of a toll road because the relative quantum of the particular revenue for the specific
plaza could be disproportionate to actual “toll length” of that particular toll section. This is not
the case because the actual capital and operational expenditure on the toll highway over its
lifespan tend to equalise over all its sections, i.e. where there are higher traffic volumes and
theoretically higher revenue, increased capital and operational expenditure over time will also
be experienced.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
there. What are the residents going to gain by the road being 80 km shorter? – object to toll
being erected in the Upper South Coast and why should Upper South Coast finance the route?
Backdoor way of stealing funds to help other areas. If cross subsidisation was to work nationally
then why do other parts of the country not subsidise each other when there are water/electricity
shortages, etc.? Businesses in Durban will be faced with the costs - is there cross subsidisation
or not? The perception is that since there will be three toll plazas in the Ugu Municipality it seems
that this area will be subsidising the road in the Eastern Cape. Over thirty years people in the
Upper South Coast will have paid R50 billion for a road costing R 8 billion. No indication given as
to what the toll would be and how much of that would be used to upgrade the 16.2 km section and
how much would be siphoned off from the [Isipingo] plaza to upgrade sections to the south
[motivation provided]. Totally unacceptable – residents of the Upper South Coast will be tolled on
a daily basis, whilst receiving no benefit whatsoever, in order to subsidise the building of a toll
road to the Eastern Cape.
9.7.1
Linked to the societal benefits issue is the question of tolling and construction of a toll road through
this region. BY SANRAL’s own admissions and formal policy (see SANRAL publication “Why
Tolling”), the use of tolling is designed to ensure that the ‘user pays’ for the roads infrastructure.
However, for the (Pondoland section at least of the) N2, the EIR makes it abundantly clear that the
only viable economic mechanism for construction of the Pondoland section is to place sufficient toll
booths in KZN province to generate the funds i.e. that it will not be the users who pay as there will
be insufficient local users who in any case cannot afford to pay toll fees (for which discounted rates
are apparently being considered), but the citizens and businesses of KZN who pay for a road they
won’t use. On this basis alone this project should be scrapped in favour of upgrading of local road
infrastructure to benefit the local communities and existing towns in Pondoland.
Refer to the response provided above.
E
9.7.2
The most glaring fact, and contradiction of principle, is that the toll gate proposed for Isipingo is
expected to fund 86% of cost of the toll road to East London simply due to the large number of daily
short - distance commuters from this region that travel into Durban every day. Alarmingly this 15 km
section of road only makes up 2.68% of the total toll road proposed! Yet, Uscata has it on public
record that a SANRAL representative (Stewart Wilson) stated that "the placing of toll gates within the
Ethekwini Municipality is designed to catch long-distance, not short-distance travellers!"
As stated in the FSR (Section 7.6.10), the perception that the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal would
fund the remainder of the proposed project is incorrect. The toll revenue generated at a specific
toll plaza may be perceived to “subsidise” other sections of a toll road because the relative
quantum of the particular revenue for the specific plaza could be disproportionate to actual “toll
length” of that particular section. This is not the case because the actual capital and operational
expenditure on the toll highway over its lifespan tend to equalise over all its sections, i.e. where
there are higher traffic volumes and theoretically higher revenue, increased capital and operational
expenditure over time would also be experienced. Furthermore, the economic specialist report (i.e.
Part 1) indicates that approximately two-thirds of all the toll revenue would be generated annually
in the Eastern Cape section of the proposed toll highway.
E
9.8
9.8.1
•
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc. would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEAT were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
S
Location of toll plazas:
Isipingo toll plaza
The communities of South Durban have given a resounding “no” to any toll roads in the area.
The eThekwini Municipality’s position as adopted in the resolution of the Executive Committee
on 31 October 2002 is as follows: “that a formal request be put to the National Department of
Transport and the National Roads Agency, that no further toll booths be placed inside the
borders of the eThekwini Municipality. Alternatively the most northerly toll booth should be at
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
200
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
the limit of the Urban Edge as depicted in the Spatial Development Framework on May 2002:
this edge being defined by the Msimbazi River.” – benefits of the proposed toll for the
Municipality and its residents are unclear while it is certain that the costs to the Municipality
and its residents will be exceptionally high. The area south of Isipingo would be disadvantaged
versus the balance of the area – to be equitable, the Unsolicited Proposal should be rejected
and a ring road should be built on the border of the eThekwini Municipal area to facilitate future
growth in the area. No toll plazas within sight of residential areas, within heavily trafficked
industrial areas (as at Isipingo/Prospecton) and on any access route to an emergency facility
such as a hospital. Why has the actual location of the toll plaza been shifted from Prospecton
to Isipingo? What are the alternative placement positions for the toll plazas and is it possible to
move the Isipingo plaza further south? If the N2 condition is unacceptable, toll the road
beyond Toti (south) so that people using the road south of Toti can carry the burden of fixing it.
The N2 is already tolled at Port Shepstone – why place another toll booth in Durban? Placing
of Isipingo toll plaza is problematic - is the placing of the Isipingo toll plaza cast in stone? – by
moving the plaza 10 km to the south the entire problems of the people of the area would be
overcome – placing of the toll plaza is total exploitation – funding the project from working
class people. Isipingo is regarded as the busiest and most dangerous part of the whole N2
and to put a toll plaza there would be suicide. Isipingo is an economic hub and the toll is going
to place a major burden on businesses in the area – the end result is an inflationary scenario
where the consumer pays. Has an environmental assessment been done of the Isipingo toll
plaza and major upgrades of intersections?
9.8.1.1
Opposition to additional toll plazas is united across political parties in the province. The KZN
Legislature voted unanimously on 27 June 2003 that no further new toll plaza decisions be taken
unilaterally by SANRAL – that the people, the municipalities and the provincial legislature be
consulted first. The eThekwini council likewise opposed the tolling of the N2 within its area of
jurisdiction. The resident and taxi associations south of Durban have campaigned against the
establishment of toll plazas on the KZN section of the N2 in the eThekwini metro council area and
south of it.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from each Premier and municipality in whose province the intended toll road would
be situated, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section
27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This
process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision
were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any
appeals.
E
9.8.1.2
We firmly believe that our concerns could easily be resolved by exploring alternative locations
further south and closer to the residential areas rather than the current proposal which has the
Isipingo toll-gate in close proximity to the industrial nodes and the resultant traffic congestion. This
premise of locating the proposed Isipingo toll-gate further south (and thus alleviating commercial
and industrial traffic congestion) is reinforced by the fact that most residential road users travels
south and the highest volume of traffic is experienced in this area.
The traffic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 11 of the Draft/Final EIR) indicates the following
regarding alternative toll plaza locations: “The most logical toll strategy would be a mainline toll
plaza at the southern end of the section with the northern ramps of interchanges tolled. This would
make it possible to charge tolls relative to the distance of the section used in respect of the major
traffic movements between the various interchanges and the Prospecton interchange and further
north. This toll strategy is, however, not feasible because of the steep gradients of some of the
ramps on which toll plazas would have had to be built.”
E
The proposed mitigation strategy of charging local road users only for the distance of the N2
Prospecton – Winklespruit section that they would actually use (by using Electronic Toll Collection
technology) means that the actual physical location of the mainline toll plaza would become less
important, since local road users with toll tags would qualify for a Local User Discount based upon
where they enter/leave the N2 south of the Isipingo toll plaza.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
201
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
S
E
Tolling within municipal boundaries
Why are toll fees to be collected within the confines of municipalities in KZN, but not those in
the Eastern Cape? Opposed to construction of any toll plazas within a municipal boundary
and particularly the construction of toll plazas close to residential areas. Toll plazas would be
better received if they were constructed only on the boundaries of municipal areas. No toll
plazas in urban areas [motivation provided]. Why will no toll fees be collected within the
confines of the East London municipal area? [motivation provided]. The eThekwini Municipal
Manager has stated publicly that he is totally against a toll road within the municipal
boundaries; who said the plaza could be placed there, who negotiated it and does the council
have any say in stopping it or will it be bulldozed through? Why not build the toll plaza at
Illovo? [motivation provided]. Object to the positioning of a toll plaza within the municipal area,
particularly at Isipingo and Adams Road [motivation provided]. The idea of exacting road toll
in any local authority area for the benefit of an area, businesses or persons outside the local
authority concerned is unacceptable in principle [motivation provided]. Why is the toll plaza so
close as to affect all the people that commute to Durban on a daily basis while on the north
coast it is not done? – why is it not started at Port Shepstone? [motivation provided].
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
9.8.2.1
Why must we pay for the toll road (National Road)? This does not happen in Gauteng or other
provinces that in city boundaries commuters pay for national toll roads.
According to SANRAL it is usually not possible to construct a highway of such magnitude without
using toll financing. The National Treasury budgeting process has to cater for disparate needs of
the society. Indeed, government policy is to prioritise social investment in education, health,
housing, etc. and such large sums as required for the proposed toll highway are not readily
available from Treasury. Because of this, Government policy and SANRAL legislation provides for
alternative funding mechanisms, and where such is available and feasible such alternatives must
be explored. According to SANRAL, the alternative funding strategy is toll road funding which has,
over the years, proved to be very successful. Currently 2 500 km of South Africa’s roads are tolled.
E
9.8.2.2
In view of the serious economic impacts of tolling on the region and the subsequent knock on effects
on the poor the Ethekwini Municipality reaffirms its earlier decision on 31 October, 2002 not to support
toll booths within the municipal boundaries.
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees,
comments and representations from each municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended toll road
would be situated, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in
Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced.
This process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the
decision were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration
of any appeals.
E
Noted.
S
E
9.8.2
9.8.3
Toll plazas should be on the new section
The tolls should be at the start of the N2 and not in an area that is not directly involved.
Tolling should begin after Port Edward where the new infrastructure was being built. If the
rationale for tolling the road is tourism and the opening up of the EC economy, then put the
first toll gate in the vicinity of the Wild Coast. Any traffic serving the EC and East London
should be tolled south of the Wild Coast Sun, or alternatively a new route must be found
inland of the N2 Durban to East London [motivation provided].
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Refer further to response provided above.
202
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
9.8.4
9.8.4.1
9.8.5
9.8.5.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
This is incorrect. The potential economic and social impacts of the proposed project on local
communities are discussed in Chapter 9 of the DSR/FSR and were investigated and assessed as
part of the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volumes 3 and 4 of the
Draft/Final EIR). SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll
fees, comments and representations from interested parties, etc., would be dealt with in the
Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act,
1998 – this process has not yet commenced.
S
Noted. Refer further to response provided to Item 9.1.1 above.
E
Location of ramp plazas
Proposed toll plaza at Adams Road boggles the mind – there is no space for such a building.
Why could the Ndwalane plaza not be built without ramps? – ramp plazas would be a barrier
between Port St Johns and Mthatha. Will one be able to exit at Southbroom onto the old road
before having to pay any tolls? Will be paying a toll at the Joyner Road Interchange for using
two to three kilometres per day which is unfair – only alternative is to use Kingsway. SANRAL
was requested to look at the toll booths at Shelley Beach because there is quite a lot of traffic
diversion there – should look at alternatives.
Please refer to typical layout details shown in Appendix 18. SANRAL has indicated that the
positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and representations from interested
parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of
Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this
process has not yet commenced.
S
I strongly disagree with the proposed implementation of the toll plazas. They are too close together
as Doonside, Amanzimtoti and Athlone Park are more or less one area and it is ridiculous that we
have to pay toll fees, no matter how much discount.
SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking a
number of considerations into account. These include:
E
Tolling existing roads in the Eastern Cape
Potential impact of tolls to local communities not indicated [motivation provided]. Was there
not a place for the toll plaza closer to Matyengqina? Would be better if the number of toll
gates were reduced to one or two – there should be one toll gate next to East London as they
are well off compared to the former Transkei, and one plaza from the Kei River to Mthatha.
Toll gates should be built next to East London.
It would be to the greatest benefit of the rural poor if the existing roads were to be upgraded. Even if
the greenfields section were to be built (to satisfy the Dept of Transport's vision of a more complete
grid of roads), do not toll the rest of the route as it is not in the best interest of the local population.
•
•
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
Also, SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments
and representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would
be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
9.8.6
Location of toll plazas
How have the positions of the toll plazas and toll fees been calculated? Where exactly will the
Ndwalane toll plaza be? Ngobozi toll plaza should rather be called “Ndabakazi” toll plaza.
Where will the toll plaza be in Pondoland? What criteria are used to allocate the toll plaza
site? Why are toll plazas placed at short intervals between Port Shepstone and Durban?
Given the resistance to the project, will the study consider alternative positions for the toll
plazas? Distance saving between East London and Durban is all between Port Shepstone
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking a
number of considerations into account. These include:
•
•
203
S
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
and Mthatha, so why have tolls between Durban and Port Shepstone? Why are there no tolls
between Gonubie and the Kei River? Can the plaza be placed close to the Kei River? – in
East London people have money; even with discounts it would affect people. Confirmation
required there will not be a new toll plaza between Port Edward and Oribi. Are Hibberdene,
Park Rynie and Isipingo all main toll plazas? Are all the toll plazas at equal intervals – is there
any reason why they are so close in Durban and further apart in EC? Why can the toll road
not start at Illovo? The toll plaza should be south of Pennington - mostly holiday makers will
be affected.
9.8.6.1
I think that the toll plaza should not be located at Isipingo, but be located further down the coast.
Noted. Refer to response provided above.
E
9.8.6.2
Should you still feel it is necessary to toll KZN South Coast Road may I suggest the following, the
first toll from Durban will be at the intersection of the N3 / M4 so that all traffic is tolled and the cost
is spread more evenly.
According to the traffic specialist, the suggestion regarding tolling the N3 and M4 near the Durban
CBD would be relevant in the event that those freeway sections as well as the urban part of the N2
South form part of, say, a metropolitan freeway toll scheme. In the case of the proposed N2 Wild
Coast Toll Highway, as currently defined, the tolling cost is being spread evenly by tolling each
road section individually.
E
9.9
9.9.1
•
These potential impacts have been investigated and assessed in the Impact Assessment phase of
the EIA process (refer to the noise, air quality and visual specialist reports in Volume 3, Appendix 8
and Volume 4, Appendices 9 and 10, respectively).
S
9.9.1.1
There are significant health and environmental issues that will affect my family and neighbouring
communities. The backlog of vehicles waiting at the toll roads, and specifically diesel vehicles, are
likely to cause significant emissions resulting in health issues (see attached document – Diesel and
Health in America: The Lingering Threat – submission e380)
Noted. According to the air quality specialist, it is expected that traffic congestion would occur
during peak periods, particularly in the northern-most sections of the proposed route and especially
at the proposed Isipingo Toll Plaza. A case study for Isipingo is presented in the air quality
specialist report where selected VOCs, SO2 and diesel particulates are modelled. The modelled
values (except for SO2 due to lack of data) are based on emission factors for congested traffic (and
worst-case meteorology), which is intended to provide an idea of air quality impacts during periods
of congestion.
E
Environmental impacts associated with a toll plaza:
Noise, air and light pollution
The lack of aesthetics associated with toll plazas and the increase in noise, air and light
pollution are of concern [examples provided]. Object to the extra traffic noise that will be
created.
Air quality impacts are then assessed by comparing modelled ambient concentrations against
current national ambient air quality standards. In addition, human health impacts are assessed by
comparing modelled ambient concentrations against World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines,
since these are based on protecting the health of even sensitive individuals, whereas the current
national standards are not based on health only. The concentrations modelled at the toll booths are
compared to the latest South African occupational exposure limits under the Occupational Health
and Safety Act (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5).
9.9.2
Crime
Toll plazas can provide potential for crime such as those in Gauteng – what safety measures
will be undertaken?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to SANRAL, the safety measures at a toll plaza would be similar to that of a bank that is
open 24 hours a day.
204
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
9.9.3
No.
Flooding
How much more vegetation is going to be removed from the edge of the freeway for the toll gate –
causing yet more severe flooding.
This matter will be taken into consideration in the detailed design phase, if the proposed project is
approved. Such design in respect of stormwater management would make allowance for any flood
management that may be required.
E
9.10
9.10.1
•
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen
taking a number of considerations into account. These include:
S
Number of toll plazas:
Number of toll plazas in KZN
If fewer toll plazas along the KZN route were considered there might be less outrage from the
public. See no necessity to have a toll gate at Park Rynie and at Isipingo – already one at Port
Shepstone. Park Rynie and Isipingo plazas too close – move the Isipingo one to Umlazi. To
have two more toll plazas is ridiculous. Why so many toll plazas in the Umdoni municipal
area? Frequency of the toll plazas between Port St Johns and Durban of 40 km is absolutely
ridiculous – does government have specifications that state that there should be no toll plazas
within a certain distance of one another. How does a tollgate every 80 km compare to the
number of toll plazas between Durban and Gauteng. How many toll plazas will there be? It’s
scandalous to place three toll plazas within a distance of 130 km (Southbroom to Isipingo)
especially as this road is generally in a good condition.
•
•
When
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
9.10.1.1
It seems that in KZN we are over tolled (motivation given).
Noted. Refer further to relevant responses in this regard provided above.
E
9.10.1.2
It was stated in the newspaper that KZN pays 46% of all tolls nationally. Why must we in the small
town of Amanzimtoti have to suffer for the rest of South Africa.
According to the traffic specialist, the tolls collected in KZN are applied to the rehabilitation,
resealing and maintenance of the relevant toll roads, the operation and maintenance of the toll
plazas, the payment of interest and the repayment of loans incurred in respect of the N2 North
Coast Toll Road, N2 South Coast Toll Road and the N3 Marianhill Toll Road and are not used for
any other purposes.
E
Freeways require large capital injections for their initial construction, rehabilitation, resealing and
maintenance and are, because of their high volumes and limited access, the primary candidates for
tolling, not just in KZN but in all South African provinces. In Gauteng, for example, 185 km of
upgraded freeways are being upgraded at a cost of R20 billion and the loans incurred to fund this
project will be serviced and repaid form Open Road Tolling as from early 2011. In the Western
Cape, the 184 km N1/N2 Winelands toll project is being planned and is to go to tender in due
course.
With limited funds available from National Treasury allocations, SANRAL has to either do nothing
in respect of large sections of the national road network or use other funding methods such as
tolling to provide the required road infrastructure. Toll financing is, therefore, applied in all parts of
the country where freeways and other limited access roads with high traffic volumes occur.
9.10.1.3
KZN already has the highest number of toll roads in the country.
Refer to response provided above.
E
9.10.1.4
Why not share the toll highways nationally?
Refer to response to Item 9.10.1.2 above.
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
205
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
9.10.1.5
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
The number of toll plazas on the N2 as at 2003 was nine - eight of these are located in KZN and one
in the Western Cape. KwaZulu-Natal is bearing an unjust load in the number of toll plazas that are
on the N2. The rationale behind toll plazas is that the toll will pay for the maintenance of the road
within the area the toll recuperates the money. The proposed new toll plaza is to pay for the
construction of the N2 through the Eastern Cape. The number of toll plazas must be fairly shared
between the three provinces through which the N2 is routed, namely KZN, Eastern Cape and the
Western Cape.
Refer to response to Item 9.10.1.2 above.
Response
When
E
S
Number of toll plazas in Eastern Cape
Considering the dependency of rural communities of the Eastern Cape on urban centres,
there is a potential of impoverishing them more as the commuting costs will escalate. How
many toll gates will there be? Number of toll plazas between Mthatha and Durban should be
reduced. Toll plazas between Mthatha and East London too close together – the local people
will pay more. Toll plazas should be outside local communities between the Kei River and
East London. One toll plaza between Komga and East London is enough. Toll plazas
between East London and Mthatha should be removed and there should only be two plazas
between Mthatha and Durban [motivation provided]. Ngobozi plaza near the Kei River should
be removed because it would remind people of the border gates of the previous homeland
government.
SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking a
number of considerations into account. These include:
9.10.3
Number of toll plazas on the whole route
What if there is one instead of seven toll plazas so it’s less expensive? Five plazas between
Mthatha and Durban not necessary especially in a poor area like Transkei. Why were there
so many toll plazas? – they delay transport during payment – could the number of toll gates
not be reduced?
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced.
S
9.10.4
Ramp plazas
Will the ramps of the Winklespruit and Seadoone Road Interchanges be tolled? The ramp
plaza at Shelley Beach should be removed because it causes congestion in the holiday
season.
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that the proposed toll strategy excludes tolling at the Winklespruit
and Seadoone Road Interchanges.
S
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees,
comments and representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road,
etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process
would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be
upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
E
9.10.2
9.10.4.1
Consideration should be given to the removal of toll booths at the Shelley Beach off ramp.
•
•
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
Also, SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll plazas have been chosen taking
a number of considerations into account. These include:
•
•
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
206
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
9.11
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Impact of toll plazas on emergency services:
The preponderance of ramp and mainline plazas will totally disrupt the operations of police,
ambulance and fire services. Will ambulances have to stop and pay at the toll plazas or get
stuck in the traffic on Kingsway. No emergency vehicles can pass because all the taxis are
parked on the yellow lines on the freeway.
9.11.1
From my experience, as Disaster Manager for the District up until August 2008, these tolls cause a
disruption to our operations especially in emergencies. I am referring to the tolls South of
Hibberdene. These tolls split both the Ugu District and local Municipal operations and cause
unnecessary travel costs and down time to the operation by staff taking the longer route and not
having free access on official duty to the toll route. The staff won’t use the tolls if possible as the
municipalities are reluctant to reimburse staff with these costs. This in the long term disrupts
efficiency and thus costs the tax payer further.
9.12
•
Congestion caused by toll plazas:
Location of plazas in the eThekwini municipality is unacceptable – any toll plazas in the area
will cause more traffic congestions and delays; current traffic congestions are exceeding the
planned traffic capacity and adding an additional lane will not alleviate the problem.
Congestion will occur on the Durban side of the Isipingo mainline plaza – there will be utter
chaos. Would the Isipingo toll plaza be able to accommodate the high traffic volumes without
causing significant delays? - what would the average transit time be through the Isipingo toll
plaza in comparison to the present average transit times? Traffic will be slowed down and the
only alternative route is Kingsway. Information required on how vehicles will be distributed to
reduce traffic congestion. Traffic will come to a standstill everyday as the area only has three
main roads and all the exits will have toll booths. Proximity of toll gates, mainline and ramp,
will lead to motorists experiencing more delays between Park Rynie and Durban International
Airport. What will happen to the traffic beyond Isipingo – it’s a bottleneck into Durban – the
outer ring road needs to be looked at. How would the toll road affect travelling time as people
would need to stop to pay at the plazas. The proposed toll gates will cause bottlenecks during
accidents between Isipingo and Moss Kolnick. Will need to leave an hour earlier for work once
the tolls are in place – cannot do that as kids need to be dropped off at school and crèche.
9.12.1
See Section 14-11: Since the Isipingo toll plaza would have to process significantly more traffic than
any existing South African toll plaza, inadequate toll plaza capacity may lead to significant peak
period traffic congestion. This fact must be published in the Executive Summary for the DEAT
Minister and his Director to take note off.
9.13
9.13.1
•
Toll fees:
Calculation of toll fees
Is it correct that Winklespruit would be one of the starting points for a road section and that the
fee would be calculated from that point to Amanzimtoti? Detail requested with respect to the
last 4 km before the Isipingo toll plaza from Amanzimtoti – will concessions be given to
frequent users? Why are ramps proposed on the northern ramps of the Scottburgh/Dududu
Interchange? [motivation provided]. Would travel 5 km from Winklespruit to Amanzimtoti,
would pay for 15 km – how is the distance going to be evaluated from Park Rynie? People
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
According to SANRAL, experience with other toll roads in South Africa indicates that the operations
of emergency service vehicles are not disrupted.
S
This matter will be referred to SANRAL in order to pursue a solution with the local district
municipalities as part of the Declaration of Toll Road process, if the proposed project is approved.
E
Noted. According to the traffic specialist, SANRAL requires Concessionaires to build toll plazas
and requires toll operators to provide a service at toll plazas in order to ensure that the queue
length at a toll plaza would not be more than 6 vehicles per lane, including the vehicle being
serviced, for 95% of the time. In the case of the proposed toll highway, the Concessionaire would
be required by SANRAL, in terms of its “Engineering Requirements” for concession contracts, to
use Electronic Toll Collection (ETC), including non-stop dedicated ETC lanes with an hourly vehicle
throughput of 700-800 vehicles per hour (compared to 250 vehicles per hour in a manual toll lane),
to provide the required level of service at the Isipingo toll plaza. ETC involves communication
between a toll tag attached to the windscreen of a vehicle and “readers” in a toll lane in order to
identify the vehicle for toll payment purposes. Local and other users with ETC tags would, in most
cases, not have to stop at the toll plazas at all and should, therefore, in most cases, experience
very little delay.
S
E
With the increased use of non-stop ETC it is, therefore, expected that delays at toll plazas would
be reduced significantly.
Note that this statement is made as part of the discussion dealing with potential risks associated
with the proposed toll highway, prior to the consideration of any mitigation measures which could
reduce any potential negative impacts.
E
A possible range of toll tariffs associated with each of the proposed mainline toll plazas has been
included in Section 3.5.2 of the FSR. SANRAL has indicated that the spacing and positions of toll
plazas have been chosen taking a number of considerations into account. These include:
S
•
•
207
The actual physical limitations of where a toll plaza can be located such as sight distance,
approach and departure grade, proximity to services, etc.
Spacing to provide for equitable toll tariffs for the majority of users in that specific toll section.
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
located next to new sections of road will benefit more than those whose piece of road is
upgraded. Could an agreement be made between the Government and the people on the toll
fees? Evaluation of the proposed fees should be done by an independent authority. No
figures of toll fees can be quoted even after years of study. How are the toll levels and
concessions set and who approves those? To what extent is the government involved in
determining toll fees? How much of the reported R 256 in toll fees one way is going to come
from the existing section of road and the 18 new toll plazas between the Mthamvuna River and
Isipingo? What is the rate for a heavy vehicle? Is the determination of tolls done based on a
percentage of the economic benefit or was it the responsibility of the concessionaire – what of
they wanted to charge R5 and the benefit is only R3? Will the costs be higher in the Eastern
Cape and lower where there is high traffic? – that’s fairer to the public. How much will it cost to
travel from Durban to East London? What is it going to cost in eight years’ time when the road
is built? Toll tariffs should be based on the savings in fuel and wear and tear when using the
toll road in lieu of alternate roads rather than based on fixed tariffs used for example in KZN
which have exorbitant price structures [motivation provided].
Response
When
Please refer to typical layout details shown in Appendix 18.
A possible range of toll tariffs associated with each of the proposed mainline toll plazas has been
included in Section 3.5.2 of the FSR.
9.13.1.1
As we now have taxi re-capitilisation and taxis are now 24 / 34 seaters, the toll fees should be
calculated throughout RSA, three times at least the cost to a passenger car which is licensed to take
10 to 11 passengers at most.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
E
9.13.1.2
Should you still feel it necessary to toll the N2 south in KZN to fall into the constitutional requirements
of equality, I suggest the toll should be quid pro quo (i.e.) what is spent between two tolls on
upgrading the road is a percentage of the toll cost between these two tolls. May we be assured that
no toll will come into force until the whole road is completed.
Refer to response provided above. Also, the traffic specialist has indicated that the suggestion
regarding tolling the N3 and M4 near the Durban CBD would be relevant in the event that those
freeway sections as well as the urban part of the N2 South form part of, say, a metropolitan
freeway toll scheme. In the case of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway, as currently
defined, the tolling cost is being spread evenly by tolling each road section individually.
E
9.13.2
Creation of a monopoly
SANRAL accepts by implication that Kingsway (R102) is inadequate as an alternative route –
if road users are forced to use the toll it is equivalent to a monopolistic intent. Unless
SANRAL are supporting big business against the small man, which would then bring serious
doubts to their claims to protect the public from exploitation and monopolistic practices, they
need to take cognisance of the fact that the public is being exploited by the monopolistic
practice of not having a viable alternative road provided – SANRAL should put this unsolicited
bid to bed permanently.
The traffic specialist study addressed the potential impacts on alternative routes during the Impact
Assessment phase of the EIA process (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 11).
S
9.13.3
Increase in toll fees
If the toll gates between Isipingo and East London will be viewed as one unit, the inflation
increase will be viewed as a whole and not individually (i.e. if there is not enough traffic going
through one section of tollgates, another tollgate will “take on” the inflation of the section that
is not doing so well, as well as its own). Once the toll road is built the toll fees will just keep
Aspects relating to the tolling strategy, toll sections and toll tariffs are addressed in Section 3.5 of
the DSR/ FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR. Also refer to response provided to Item 9.7
above.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
208
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
increasing and people end up paying more and more to use the roads. In 5 years’ time it is
guaranteed the R5 toll fee will have gone up 1000% [example provided]. Toll companies
seem to increase their charges every 6 months in spite of the ever-increasing volume of traffic
[examples provided]. There appears to be no control over toll fees, so no matter what toll is
introduced one can expect horrendous increase in a few years [example provided]. Does
government consult with the local communities or do they just raise the toll fees? Will
discounts go up accordingly? It’s been admitted that cross subsidisation will happen. In time
the toll cost to the motorist and the poorer section of the population will become prohibitive
[example provided]. Initial tolls at all plazas have increased over the years – what hope is
there even if it is introduced at a nominal cost?
9.13.4
When
Exemptions from toll fees
Which vehicles would be exempted from toll fees? Is it not possible to allow public transport
to receive exemption?
According to the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, SANRAL may grant exemption from the
payment of a toll to certain users or categories of vehicles. In SANRAL’s experience, full
exemptions have been open to abuse and corruption.
S
Maybe one suggestion is for local people, and especially pensioners, who do not travel very far at
any time is to have some form of free travel card which could only be used on these local travels.
This matter will be referred to SANRAL in order to pursue a solution with the local district
municipalities as part of the Declaration of Toll Road process, if the proposed project is approved.
E
9.13.5
Payment of toll fees
Who pays the toll fees – the taxi driver or the passengers? Will local people have to pay toll
fees at Candu? How long will people have to pay toll fees? What would happen if a person
discovered that they did not have the money to pass through the toll plaza when they reached
the plaza? Someone from Majola would enter the R61 at Ndwalane and would not have
travelled on the R61 at all but would then have to pay to get to Port St Johns. If a person
travels from Durban to East London will they pay at all the toll gates?
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced.
S
9.13.6
Removal of tolls once the road is paid for
If the funds are to be used to build roads in the EC, then will it (the tolls) be removed after the roads
are built and paid for? I doubt this very much and am therefore incensed that I will have to pay large
amounts of money to something I cannot trace, and see the usage of said monies.
As stated in the FSR (Section 7.6.10), the perception that the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal would
fund the remainder of the proposed project is incorrect. The toll revenue generated at a specific
toll plaza may be perceived to “subsidise” other sections of a toll road because the relative
quantum of the particular revenue for the specific plaza could be disproportionate to actual “toll
length” of that particular section. This is not the case because the actual capital and operational
expenditure on the toll highway over its lifespan tend to equalise over all its sections, i.e. where
there are higher traffic volumes and theoretically higher revenue, increased capital and operational
expenditure over time would also be experienced. Furthermore, the economic specialist report (i.e.
Part 1) indicates that approximately two-thirds of all the toll revenue would be generated annually
in the Eastern Cape section of the proposed toll highway.
E
9.14
•
According to SANRAL, the toll revenue must first be used to maintain the road and to service and
repay the loans. What is left is usually used for a reserve fund to pay for upgrades and other
capital works. The surplus if any is used for return on investment which is capped by SANRAL.
S
E
9.13.4.1
Use of toll fees:
How would it be ensured that local communities would benefit? [motivation provided]. What
would happen once the construction companies got back their money used to construct the
road? Will royalties be paid to the Kings? Will royalties be paid to the municipalities? What is
the money from toll fees used for? Will royalties be paid to the chief or the traditional
authority? A lot of money would be made from the toll gates and yet SANRAL is only fixing the
national road between Mthatha and East London – what benefit would there be from the toll
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
209
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
road? Will there be royalties that can be paid to trusts for the communities in the affected
areas? Who will own the toll plazas? If the traditional trust will not be getting any payment for
the road then the road not go ahead. What are the benefits to the community from the toll
plazas? Could the concessionaire not make contributions to development in the area? Where
is all the money from the existing tolls going? – secondary roads are in a shocking condition.
How successful are these concessionaires? – they must have major profits.
9.14.1
SANRAL will not obtain any benefit from this road to spend on other roads in the area or any other
area. The road will therefore be a burden and liability to all the communities concerned.
Refer to response to Item 9.3.16 above.
E
9.14.2
No guarantee has been given that the funds from this toll will actually be used for any upgrade or
implementation of any other roads.
Refer to response to Item 9.3.16 above.
E
9.14.3
The town planning for the Amanzimtoti, Warner Beach, Kingsburgh areas, was not thought out very
well and is therefore already overburdened with traffic and the introduction of this toll gate will push
the traffic scenarios to breaking point and will not only cause more accidents in the area, but will
also create undue stress in the local road users. Is a portion of the toll money to go to accident
funds for local people and the upgrade of the appalling state of the roads in the abovementioned
areas? I doubt this very much, and until this can be guaranteed to, there should be no thought of
building this toll.
SANRAL has indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time if the proposed
toll highway were implemented; the quantum of any significant negative impacts could therefore
be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur.
E
9.15
9.15.1
•
Toll collection methods:
Is the implementation of a rapid lane (electronic method of payment) just an empty promise
since this has not even been implemented at the Marianhill plazas. Electronic scanning could
never be expected to work since it would be open to abuse and to scams. E tag will speed up
the traffic through toll gates. What would the costs of installing electronic equipment on each
toll road user’s vehicle be?
How will the E Tag system know that you came through the Main Toll Gate at Isipingo and left at
the Joyner Off Ramp, a distance of less than 1.5 km, which will cost R8 minimum.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
According to SANRAL various payment methods would be considered in order to ensure efficient
toll plaza operation. Payment methods could include cash, credit card and frequent user cards.
Electronic tolling could be implemented in areas where the volumes of traffic are significant – this
would be more efficient than manual toll collections and is being progressively introduced on South
African toll roads. SANRAL has indicated that it is not possible to provide a cost for installation on
a vehicle at this time, but it can be confirmed that the cost of electronic tags on cars are becoming
relatively cheap and it is likely that the actual cost could be nil.
S
The traffic specialist has indicated that the Isipingo Toll Plaza as well as the Joyner off-ramp would
be equipped with eTag readers and the toll system software would then match the two transactions
and conclude that the vehicle with this particular tag only used 1,5 km of the toll road. In terms of
the proposed mitigation measures (refer to Fig 5-1 of the traffic specialist report and Figure 14.2 of
the Final EIR), an 80% Local User Discount would then be applied to the road user leaving at the
Joyner Road off-ramp, which means that this road user would pay 20% of the full tariff, i.e. R1,60 if
the full tariff were R8,00.
E
Also, SANRAL has reiterated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees,
comments and representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road,
etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
210
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process
would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be
upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
9.16
9.16.1
•
9.16.1.1
The toll road will place a heavy additional financial burden on residents of the USC, who are regular
users of the road, in a time when the world is in economic turmoil. As the toll road will be managed
by a private company with a focussed profit incentive, I do not believe that any frequent user
discounts will be continued for any length of time and will only be introduced in the early stages to
appease opponent of the toll road.
Discounts:
Frequent user discounts
Experience with toll concessions is that they are often not real concessions – normal daily
users don’t qualify for the concession [motivation provided]. What about people who use the
road frequently from their farms to town, or the taxis? How will frequent users be identified for
discounts? Information required on discounts for usage of the road every day to and from
work. Were taxis aware of these discounts? Discounts only given to people travelling 10
times a month or more – so for the majority there won’t be any discounts. No frequent user
discounts on the N17 in Alberton. Investigate the condition that “SANRAL could specify
discounts to certain user groups” on existing toll roads and determine the actual outcome and
influence/reaction of users. Will not be able to afford to pay to go to work and back [motivation
provided] – are there going to be concessions? Where have people been granted concessions
and how much? – SANRAL can equally withdraw concessions.
SANRAL has indicated that the toll concession would be awarded via a tender process - this
implies that the various bids would be submitted on a competitive basis. SANRAL would then
negotiate the most beneficial contract. The successful Concessionaire’s tolling strategy will
determine what the discounts would be. According to SANRAL discounts would be finalized and
gazetted prior to the operation of the toll plazas. Structures would be set up with communities to
facilitate negotiation where necessary. In SANRAL’s experience, full exemptions have been open
to abuse and corruption. According to SANRAL, frequent users would normally apply to the
operator and be granted such status as appropriate.
S
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from each Premier in whose province the intended toll road would be situated, etc.,
would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL
and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
E
9.16.2
Discounts for pensioners
Advantages of a pensioner’s access card should be considered [motivation provided].
Noted.
S
9.16.3
Local user discounts
There can be no possible mitigation measures to tariffs. How and at what cost would rebates
for local residents of a particular area be applied? [motivation provided] SANRAL should be
required to commit itself to a policy which favours 100% exemptions for local users [motivation
provided]. How will local people eligible for toll discounts be identified? How do people
qualify for local discounts? In the KSD Municipality an innovative method will need to be
worked out to identify local users, like working with ward councillors [motivation provided].
How would the discounts be calculated? Would local people pay the same toll fees as
tourists? Not sure that discounts will happen [motivation provided]. What radius is looked at
in terms of discounts? Where in South Africa do discounts exist? It will be too costly for local
people to use the toll gates. How will somebody go from one village to another if there is a toll
plaza? Not expected that locals will receive an adequate discount. When the Hibberdene
section of the N2 was being built local residents were supposed to be offered discounts but
weren’t – being punished by sing the toll road [motivation provided]. How will the project
identify those who live near the toll gate and who will qualify for discounts/concessions?
According to SANRAL, local users are basically users from a “captive community” i.e. users who
do not have a viable alternative to the toll road. Discounts are normally commensurate with the
“disbenefit” that such users will derive from using only part of the toll road. Identification would
normally be on presentation of a utility account of the area in question. Structures would be set up
with communities to facilitate negotiation where necessary.
S
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
211
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
9.16.3.1
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
A further concern of WESSA is the whole Tolling system. From the report it appears that the
viability of the road is totally dependent on the establishment of numerous Tolls along the route. Yet
despite this the ramifications of the Tolling System did not form part of the EIA (Environmental
Impact Assessment) or Social assessment. We believe that the viability of the road is indisputably
linked to the Tolling System and must therefore be dealt with as an integral part of the whole study.
The Tolling will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the lives of many people and will seriously
disadvantage the lives of poorer South Africans. Despite the assurances made that the poorer
people (particularly those of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal) will be granted concessions etc,
the implementation of this system is beset with difficulties and the poorer sector once again become
the victims of inappropriate macro-economic development. The only way this proposed road can
gain the full and enthusiastic support of the local people is by ensuring that tangible benefits accrue
to the people on the ground. The EIR does not indicate how this could happen. WESSA wonders
how the proposal to give concessions to people living along the route will work. The concept seems
fine in theory but the implication that this would only apply to commuters’ i.e. a reduced rate if you
pre-purchase, which is useless for the majority in the area, who do not use the road on a regular
basis. WESSA is not aware of other areas where concessions are actually available to local
residents on an ad hoc basis? The tolling process would increase travelling costs to Durban from the
South Coast substantially for those living in the area, so it actually impacts on the whole democratic
process and the right to be heard.
Response
The EIA team and SANRAL have been advised that “tolling” and the “structuring of toll fees” fall
outside the ambit of the EIA Regulations and the jurisdiction of DEAT and the Appeal Authority. To
deal with the levying of toll fees as part of the EIA would be ultra vires and unlawful as the
procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by the
SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 (the Act) and must take place in accordance therewith.
The Act itself specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a Toll road.
To the extent that SANRAL fails to consider comments and representations made during the public
participation process undertaken in terms of the Act, aggrieved parties are entitled to review the
decision. It was advised that issues and concerns relating to tolling and associated socioeconomic impacts should not be addressed in the EIA, but be merely captured in the relevant
documentation and forwarded to the Minister of Transport for consideration during the Declaration
of Toll road process. The Draft/Final EIR nevertheless addresses certain potential toll fundingrelated impacts (refer to Part D, Volume 1).
When
E
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from interested parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
Refer further to responses provided above n this regard.
9.16.3.2
Although it has been proposed that special concessions could be provided the concept appears to be These opinions are noted. Refer further to responses provided above in this regard.
restricted to regular users and to the economically advantaged. Toll roads are intrinsically elitist. The
failure to address this issue in an area of conspicuous unemployment and non-employment is a
serious flaw in this assessment.
9.17
•
9.17.1
Tolling of an existing road:
Tolling of an existing road is not acceptable and is widely rejected by the people in the KZN
Upper South Coast. The N2 was built through the middle of Amanzimtoti and became part
and parcel of the suburban road network – SANRAL are thinking of perpetuating this mistake
by making the inhabitants of this area pay to use this portion of the N2. Why could a new road
not be built and the existing R61 between Mthatha and Port St Johns not be left alone?
[motivation provided]. Had a problem with the existing road which would be turned into a toll
road – the economy of Transkei was not good. How would people benefit if the existing road
would be taken away from them? Upgrades are necessary, whether the road is tolled or not.
What are the benefits to commuters between Port Edward and Durban? – what justification is
there to toll people who have already paid for it and who are taxed for it? The road is already
there and paid for and people cannot afford it.
The fact that this Consortium will benefit from the infrastructure which was built over a 60 year
period is not mentioned (in the DEIR). I would suggest the road paid for by the community in the
form of various taxes is equivalent to being stolen by this proposal.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
E
Rejection of tolling of the existing N2 in the KZN Upper South Coast is noted.
S
E
Refer to responses provided under Items 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 above.
E
212
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
9.17.2
No.
The Sobonakhona Traditional Council is opposed to having to pay toll fees on an existing 'free' road and
regards the actions of SANRAL as immoral and unjust and believes that it should protect its current toll
free use of its section of the N2 situated within the Ethekwini municipal boundary.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and
representations from each municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended toll road would be
situated, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27
of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This
process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision
were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any
appeals.
E
9.18
•
Noted. The economic specialist study includes investigation and assessment of road user costs
and benefits along the various sections of the proposed toll highway (refer to Volume 4, Appendix
13).
S
User pays principle:
The statement “only pay for the section of road used” is not correct in the Amanzimtoti area
[motivation provided]. Stated that one pays for the section of road you use but there is only
one toll plaza between Port Edward and Durban. One gets zero benefit if one enters at
Isipingo – would one have to pay to go to Durban?
When
Also, SANRAL has indicated that discounts would be finalized and gazetted prior to the operation
of the toll plazas. Structures would be set up with communities to facilitate negotiation where
necessary. According to SANRAL, frequent users would normally apply to the operator and be
granted such status as appropriate.
9.18.1
While we subscribe to the “user pays” principle, we must stress that we have, and still do, pay –
through our taxes and tolls – for the routes over which our materials and produce regularly travel.
9.19
•
Economic efficiency of tolling:
What would the cost of operating the toll road be as a proportion of the toll fees collected?
Noted.
E
According to SANRAL, the cost of operating the toll road would be approximately 11-15% of the toll
revenue.
S
9.19.1
The costs of erection and manning these Plaza`s is in my mind and many others not justified.
This opinion is noted.
E
9.19.2
It is found that there are illogical justifications presented for such a toll road, as well as for the proposed
route. While the region’s road infrastructure desperately needs upgrading, an untolled national road
presents a much more efficient alternative to the proposed toll road. It is important to define precisely
what is being compared in this toll highway issue, since it must be possible to compare like matters
before coming to a decision on which option is better. In this respect, the EIA does not clarify
precisely what is being compared in terms of the different road options, in particular, if the toll road
does not go ahead, what is involved in the so-called “do-nothing” option?
Much is made in the EIA documents of the need to uplift the disadvantaged communities in the
former Transkei, and this must surely be one of the main reasons for upgrading the road structures. As
stated in the documents, this is one of the most impoverished areas in South Africa, and the
proposed project will reduce road-user costs and optimise safety and socio-economic benefits.
Furthermore, the Executive Summary states that (FSR Exec Summary §3.3.1) the Wild Coast region has
been identified as an area for strategic economic development in accordance with Government’s Spatial
Development Initiative (SDI) strategy. The Wild Coast SDI identified the provision of a major road, such as
the proposed toll road, as an important catalyst for achievement of its objectives since it would enhance
access to the region and would facilitate development of the eco-tourism potential of the area.
This makes it clear that, if the toll road does not go ahead, the road infrastructure in the Wild Coast
Noted. In relation to the economic and financial analysis undertaken during the Scoping Study, the
figures shown (in the DSR/FSR) for upgrading the existing routes between Mthatha and Port
Shepstone basically reflect the difference in costs/benefits between upgrading the respective
routes (construction of climbing lanes, shoulders, etc.) and the costs/benefits of maintaining them
in the current condition (at an acceptable level of serviceability).
E
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
As stated in the EIA reports (DSR/FSR and Draft/Final EIR), toll financing of national roads present
an alternative source of funding over and above that of fiscus funding. The success of toll roads as
primary arterials for South Africa has been adequately demonstrated and proved by the N1, N2, N3
and N4 toll roads including the three existing concession toll roads, over the last 30 years.
Nevertheless, SANRAL is committed to always assess the affordability of its funding strategies in
consultation with National Treasury and Department of Transport and to implement appropriate
solutions.
213
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
region should still be improved.
When
The section of the EIA documents dealing with the economics of national and toll roads states that in
2002 the amount paid into the national fiscus by road users was of the order of R26 billion, far in
excess of the approximately R7 billion spent by the state in 2003 on building and maintaining
national, provincial, metropolitan and municipal roads. In 2003 SANRAL’s budget allocation was only
R1.1 billion, and this is given as the reason for obtaining more funds through toll roads.
In terms of economics and road infrastructure, toll roads are an inefficient means of constructing road
networks. Thus it has been estimated that only around 70% of collected toll actually finds its way
back into road construction and maintenance, with the rest going to toll collection infrastructure,
salaries and shareholders.
Moreover, access to toll roads has to be constrained within the toll plaza configurations, leading to
logistical problems and inefficiencies. In addition, the increases in tolls have made some trucking
companies use secondary roads to save money. This is destroying those secondary roads, resulting
in increased maintenance costs, and it has also led to accidents.
Proponents of toll roads also use the argument that tolls work on a user-pay basis. However, this is
fallacious since road users have already paid into Treasury (R26 billion in 2002), and road funding
should be allocated on the basis that all roads must be constructed and maintained by the relevant
authorities. Rural roads get allocated less because they have fewer users, while important roads get
more funding because of more users. To then add a toll onto selected roads means paying double.
It is also important to note that the primary interest of Toll Road Companies is to their shareholders,
which means that such roads will be constructed to maximise their profit; this will not necessarily be
the best option for the local communities.
It is therefore disconcerting to find the following statement in the EIA documentation (EIA Chapter 5,
§5.3.1), notwithstanding the conclusion above that road infrastructure in the Wild Coast Region
should be improved:
The “do nothing” scenario involves maintaining the status quo of the existing N2 and R61 routes
between East London and Durban with no construction of new roads in the greenfields sections
between Ndwalane and Ntafufu, and between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River. The maintenance and
upgrade of the relevant sections of the existing N2 and R61 would continue to be the responsibility of
SANRAL and the relevant provincial road authorities, respectively. With SANRAL receiving insufficient
funds, work to the routes is likely to be limited to the bare essentials and upgrade work may not be
undertaken at the time required for such work. This would likely result in the roads becoming further
damaged and increasingly hazardous and congested.
In other words, if the proposed toll road is not accepted, then the Wild Coast Region’s roads can be
expected to deteriorate! This is tantamount to blackmail, and makes a mockery of any intention of the
authorities to improve the condition of the inhabitants of the region by improving the roads. Surely
the region deserves to be a priority area, and as such to be allocated funding for the road network
on the most efficient basis?
There are further examples excessive advertising for the toll road. Thus the FSR Executive Summary
(page xix) statement that the upgrading of the existing N2 would result in ‘substantially (i.e. orders of
magnitude) lower road user cost savings’ is patently untrue. An order of magnitude involves a factor of
10. It has been estimated (Table 3) that travelling from eThekwini to East London will cost as much as
R321 in tolls. Do the authors of the EIA really expect anyone to believe that, after paying R321, road users
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Although there may also be a need for local roads the main object of SANRAL, as prescribed by
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction, operation,
management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It is misleading to suggest
that the national road network need not be extended into a region because local roads can provide
a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all regions in South Africa are entitled to the benefit
of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to ensure that the network is developed
appropriately.
Please note that Section 4.1 (p. 4-2), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR also states that “intersections
(possible future interchanges) are proposed at all locations where the proposed toll highway would
cross existing district and access roads.” Furthermore, Section 3.3.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final
214
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
will still make a saving of R3210 (one order of magnitude), or R32 100 (two orders of magnitude) by
travelling on the Toll Road?
A further problem of being coerced to accept the toll road is that, as already indicated, the Toll Road
Company which is awarded the tender will seek to maximise its profits. This will not necessarily be to the
advantage of the region or its people.
In this respect, it is important to assess what impact a good road will have on the economy of the
region. The conclusion reached in the economic report (page viii) for the toll road is pertinent:
On aggregate the project will make a significant contribution to the primary macro-economic goal of
improving the wealth of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces. In view of the fact that these
benefits will not be diverted or transferred from other provinces, but be generated locally, the average
annual net macro-economic gain of R2 612 million will also accrue to the country as a whole (i.e. the
road will be instrumental that South Africa’s national product increases by R2.6 billion annually).
In other words, the toll road will be directly responsible for an annual increase of R2.6 billion in
South Africa’s national product. With the recognised inefficiencies of toll roads, and the cost of
around 30% more, the positive contribution of a similar untolled national road will be even more.
With these figures to hand, it seems inconceivable that SANRAL cannot persuade the South African
Treasury to increase its budget allocation. The priority that has been given to the Wild Coast in terms of
upgrading should be an additional reason for providing the funding.
Table 11 of the FSR Executive Report shows that the actual cost of the toll road between Mthatha
and Port Shepstone is only R1.77 billion. Since an untolled national road will cost even less, the
benefits to South Africa will quickly cover the initial capital costs. In toll roads future maintenance is
covered by the tolls. However, the initial savings in capital costs and greater efficiencies and benefits
of an untolled national road should be sufficient to justify maintenance costs. Of course, the fact that
road users will not have to pay tolls - starting at up to R321 for a single trip from Port Shepstone to
East London - will also be a substantial benefit to people in the area.
Response
When
EIR mentions that “it is considered that such a national road or “spine” would provide the
necessary linkages and impetus to improve the secondary and local road networks while facilitating
sustainable economic growth along the entire corridor.”
Also, SANRAL has indicated that its Unsolicited Proposal Policy is not designed to maximise
profits, but rather to provide a sustainable service to road users. If this process does not balance
the needs of the communities (by way of an equitable toll) with the needs of the private sector (by
way of profit) it has failed its primary objective. SANRAL, as custodian of the national road
network, is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that these balances are met.
It should be noted that supporting data and calculations on road user costs are provided in the
Appendices of the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13). A summary of the
economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus the road user costs “after”) along the
various road sections of the proposed toll highway (including the KZN section) is shown in
Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
Recognising the benefits of a national road vis-a-vis a toll road, these conclusions also mean that
there is no need to toll existing roads in southern KwaZulu-Natal. No detailed benefit analysis could be
found in the EIA for this region, but presumably a well-constructed road infrastructure will also show
directly related increases in South Africa’s national product.
9.20
9.20.1
•
9.20.1.1
The present toll road proposal is from East London to Durban, through the Transkei, encapsulating the
current R 61 and N2. Uscata is objecting to the tolling of that portion of the N2, between Umkomaas
Opposed to tolling:
Opposed to tolling on KZN Upper South Coast
This is the most stupid idea anyone could have come up with – the road from Amanzimtoti to
Isipingo is already a nightmare. Strongly object to the toll road since it will have an adverse
effect on the Amanzimtoti community. Do not support the toll road - life is too expensive as it
is now to have this huge, costly, daily burden. The Minister should be told that there is a
strong feeling against this proposed toll road, and some other proposal should be considered.
People are opposed to the road because it will affect them negatively. Is anybody for the toll
road? – not heard anybody from eThekwini municipality or industry come out in support of the
road.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
Opposition to tolling on KZN Upper South Coast is noted. SANRAL has reiterated that the
positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and representations from interested
parties on the proposed declaration of the toll road, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of
Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this
process has not yet commenced. This process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the
proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental
Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
S
E
Opposition to tolling on KZN Upper South Coast is noted. SANRAL has reiterated that the
positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and representations from interested
E
215
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
and Durban, that is within the boundaries of the Ethekwini Municipality.
Currently this section of the N2, servicing the ' the Upper South Coast', is an existing road within
the Ethekwini municipal area that functions as a everyday road for the convenience of local people
that drop their children off at schools, visit shopping centres & hospitals and commute to Durban
and back daily. SANRAL seems oblivious that this section of the N2 passes directly through the
towns of Isipingo, Athlone Park, Amanzimtoti, Warner Beach, Winklespruit and lllovo and is in fact
the community's everyday road. The installation of toll gates at all the entrances onto the N2
currently used by the greater Amanzimtoti community will be hugely inconvenient as well as costly
to this community. The very suggestion by SANRAL of such a plan is seen as being extremely
insensitive to the needs and well-being of this community.
Should this section of road be tolled, the only other 'alternative' road is an already overburdened
residential road known as "Kingsway". Environmentally and socially neither this nor the economic
burden of having to commute daily on a toll road is acceptable to a very concerned local community.
Undoubtedly, virtually every resident, motorist, business owner, church and other organisations
within the southern area of the Ethekwini municipality, including the South Durban Basin, will be
negatively affected as follows:
• many vehicle drivers will bypass the toll plazas and use other suburban roads as an alternative
route:
• these other roads will deteriorate more rapidly than at present;
• an extra financial burden will be placed on ratepayers to pay for repairs to these roads
• the extra traffic will cause congestion on these other roads
• existing congestion in and out of hospitals, churches, schools, etc will be exacerbated
• vehicle movement both in and out of residential drive ways will be impeded (security hazard)
• traveling time within the local area will increase;
• accidents will increase;
• noise and air pollution will increase;
• there will be a negative monetary impact on ordinary people:
• toll fees paid daily by shoppers, school children, hospital visitors and resident commuters /
workers will reduce local disposable income by many millions which will seriously affect the well
being of the local people, considering the high cost of living, particularly foodstuffs;
• there will be a negative monetary impact on business:
• toll fees will substantially increase the supply and delivery cost of products, thus making local
business more costly. As many of these business may either close or relocate, the result will be
loss of jobs by the local community;
• local road users do not currently experience traffic delays. However, traffic congestion caused
by drivers using alternative residential roads will increase traveling time and hence costs;
• the purported improvements to the N2 road between Isipingo and Adams Road, by the provision
of additional vehicle lanes, is unlikely to be much of a benefit to local commuters and can hardly
be justified by the paying of toll fees for the next 30 years;
• the inference that toll fees are required for the building of an upgraded interchange at the
Amanzimtoti Adams Road intersection is not true. Uscata is well aware that the funds originally
set aside for this upgrade many years ago were utilized for other projects due to complications
parties on the declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of
Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this
process has not yet commenced. This process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the
proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental
Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
The Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process has included investigation and assessment of
potential impacts associated with diversion of traffic onto alternative routes, as appropriate (refer to
Volumes 3 and 4 and Part D, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR).
Also, SANRAL has indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations on all
possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time if the proposed
toll highway were implemented; the quantum of any significant negative impacts could therefore
be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur.
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
216
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
with the upgrade. Subsequent EIA discussions even muted that a proposed new shopping
centre (Estuary) in the centre of Amanzimtoti would build and pay for it. For these reasons it is
improper for SANRAL to suggest that local residents pay for this upgrade by means of toll fees.
9.20.2
Opposed to additional tolling on KZN South Coast
Lodge objections to the building of the proposed toll highway between East London and
Durban – objections are not to the road per se but to it being tolled in addition to the current
tolls from Port Shepstone southwards [motivation provided]. Unacceptable that local residents
will have to pay toll fees many times in one day between Athlone Park and Winklespruit. The
proposal will destroy the goose that lays the golden egg. Don’t think it’s fair that people have
to get tolled to have a decent road. Umdoni municipality stated that it does not have a
problem with progress but it has a problem with the tolling. When people have to queue at
the toll plazas a criminal element is introduced. Why must Toti and especially Umgababa, a
poor part of the community, pay? – why must they subsidise a toll road that has nothing to do
with them which only 10% of the population in the area would use? Not against the road but
worried about the toll fees. Lot of traffic between Doonside and Umbogintwini – the toll plaza
will impact on that traffic.
Objection to the proposed toll highway is noted. Refer further to response above.
S
E
9.20.3
Opposed to tolling on existing roads in Eastern Cape
Not happy about the two plazas between Mthatha and East London. What would happen if
people said they didn’t want the toll plazas? Opposed to the proposed toll road.
Opposition to the proposed toll highway is noted. SANRAL has reiterated that the positioning of toll
plazas, determination of toll fees, comments and representations from interested parties on the
declaration of the proposed toll road, etc., would be dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road
process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has
not yet commenced. This process would only commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed
project, and the decision were to be upheld by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs
after consideration of any appeals.
S
9.20.4
Criticism of opposition to the toll road
It is very wrong that people who are not directly affected by the road (who will not have to
move from their homes) are the ones who are getting the platform to oppose the toll road
construction. Competition would be high with KZN if the Wild Coast area is developed – that
is why KZN people are opposed to the road. People of Pondoland need and want the road.
Information required on views of people who opposed the road. Petition stating that 40 000
people in Port St Johns did not want the road was not correct. No need for anybody else
from outside the area to decide the people’s future. People from outside Pondoland must not
interfere with the road because there are good roads there in their areas [motivation provided].
People who are anti toll road are not from the Libode area. Apparently only 2% are opposed
to the road.
Noted.
S
Noted.
S
9.21
9.21.1
•
Tolling of alternative routes:
Opposed to the tolling of alternative routes
Tolling of alternative roads, which were incorporated into toll roads, is also a major problem
[examples provided].
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
217
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
9.22
9.22.1
•
9.22.2
Inclusion of existing concession in Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway
I am of the opinion that the existing Toll roads on the N2 south of Durban are not included in this
proposal. The distance on Section 27 – Umhlungwa Interchange to Park Rynie Interchange is given
as 31.6 Km. It would be interesting to see how this relationship between the Scheme Developers
and SANRAL develops in future.
Existing Toll Concession and Exit costs:
Exit cost from existing KZN South Coast Toll Concession
What will be the exit costs for the existing concession contract for the plaza on the existing toll
road towards Port Edward where they have specific rights?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
SANRAL has indicated there is no concession on the N2 at present.
S
This opinion is noted. The toll sections of the proposed toll highway is presented in Section 3.5.2
(Table 3.4), Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR – this shows hat the section of the existing N2 South
Coast Toll Road between Southbroom and Hibberdene would be incorporated into the proposed
project.
E
218
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
Table 10: Comments and Responses Table summarising issues and concerns relating to economic aspects, with responses from the EIA project team and
SANRAL, as appropriate
No.
10.1
10.1.1
10.1.1.1
10.1.1.2
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
•
Response
Road user costs and benefits:
Benefits to road users of N2 on KZN South Coast
How will the proposed road benefit those making use of the existing N2 on the KZN South
Coast when it will cost more for people to commute? Need more information on the costbenefit relationship for the proposed toll road from Isipingo-Illovo. It is clearly totally untrue
that the proposed road would “improve” access while reducing road user costs for the
residents of the Upper South Coast who will be burdened with increased costs for some 30
years. No evidence of any detailed analysis of trip origins and destinations in order to obtain
a pattern of trips made by residents of the broader Amanzimtoti area – many vehicles use
only a short stretch of the N2 (often not more than 1.5 km) and consequently the fees they
would pay could well exceed benefits in the way of reduced user costs; effects on industries
and the business community also need to be taken into account. What are the benefits to
the KZN South Coast? North of Port Shepstone there is not much being done in the way of
improvements. Would people be able to object to the deemed economic benefit? What is
the time frame for the extra lane in the Amanzimoti area? If the Estuary Development does
or does not happen will Adams Road still get upgraded? Cannot see how road user costs
will be reduced from Port Shepstone to Durban. Cannot see benefits arising out of the
construction of the toll road.
The tollgates will increase travelling expenses with a
concomitant ripple effect through the rest of the economy. Adams Road Interchange should
be upgraded, but not at the expense of residents and workers from the area surrounding the
proposed toll plazas.
When
Noted. The economic specialist study included investigation and assessment of road user costs
and benefits (refer to Part 1 of the economic specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 13 of the
Draft/Final EIR). In particular, refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report for
supporting data and calculations of road user costs and benefits. A summary of the economic
benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus the road user costs “after”) along the various road
sections of the proposed toll highway is shown in Appendix C of the economic specialist report.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
According to SANRAL, a detailed origin and destination survey has been undertaken, based on a
number plate survey and other information-gathering studies.
And there it is in a nutshell, Wild Coast Highway. 86% of which is to be funded by the long suffering
residents of Durban South and environs. How can that be? To add insult to injury the study clearly
states that the “largest portion of the benefits will accrue to the Eastern Cape” (par 6.5.1). In the
same section it states “the proposed highway should benefit all users” Of what benefit is it to me to
use the same road I’ve used for the last 30 years, only now I must fork out money? I must pay a toll
to visit my doctor in Warner Beach, play bowls in Amanzimtoti, shop at Clicks in Seadoone Mall or
visit my family in Durban. Par 3.1 states that 80% of this toll road will use existing road! I enter the
N2 at Dickens Road northbound and travel approx. 2Kms, pay a toll and continue on my way to
Durban ON THE SAME ROAD I’VE ALWAYS USED! Where is the saving in time and fuels? And
let us not forget the “increased income in agriculture, forestry and tourism” (par 6.5.1.d) What?
Because of an extra lane between the Amanzimtoti River and Prospecton? Someone has a very
fanciful imagination!
Refer to the Appendices of the economic specialist report in Volume 4, Appendix 13 of the
Draft/Final EIR for supporting data and calculations of road user costs and benefits. A summary of
the economic benefits (i.e. the road user costs “before” minus the road user costs “after”) along the
various road sections of the proposed toll highway is shown in Appendix C of the economic
specialist report.
The argument that 'South Coast road users must accept that they will gain greater benefit than the
cost they will be required to pay' is nothing less than insulting and typifies the top-down approach
of this entire project. No concrete facts are advanced to support this - only assumptions.
Refer to the responses provided above.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
S
E
E
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
219
E
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
10.1.1.3
According to the draft EIA dated 10 Nov. 2008 the following benefits to road users will be available.
a.
Improved road safety – How?
b.
Improved access control – to whose benefit?
c.
Reduced travel time – How?
d.
Improved riding quality – existing road is fine.
One of the considerations that has to be borne in mind in the proposals to develop Toll Roads is
that there must be benefits to the communities affected. In the light of the above, it must be
obvious that there will be no benefits to the members of the above association. To the contrary, it
will only make it more expensive and, in addition, will add to the cost of living by increasing the cost
of every bit of material delivered through or from Durban. The members of the MRA feel that it is
very unfair and unreasonable to expect the motorists that are using the above section (between
Hibberdene and Durban) of the proposed Toll Road to bear the cost that will not benefit them.
According to the economic specialist improved road safety would result from reduced congestion
and road surface roughness; improved access control would benefit all users of the access roads
and freeway; and reduced travel time would result from additional lanes on carriageways. It is
also indicated that the riding quality of the existing road would deteriorate with time. Refer further
to responses provided above.
E
10.1.1.4
The project will increase vehicle operating costs, not decrease them as the study suggests. It will
only be beneficial for vehicle operating costs if the entire distance of the toll road is travelled. We
are concerned residents commuting to and from work on a daily basis from the South Durban area.
The economic specialist has indicated that there is no sense in improving a road when it would
lead to an increase in vehicle operating costs (VOC). All the improvements are aimed at reducing
the VOC by either better geometry, more capacity, better riding quality or a shorter distance.
E
According to the economic specialist improved road safety would result from reduced congestion
and road surface roughness; improved access control would benefit all users of the access roads
and freeway; and reduced travel time would result from additional lanes on carriageways.
S
10.1.2
Benefits to road users of existing N2 and R61 in Eastern Cape
What would be the benefits for taxis, especially from the Libode/Ntlaza area?
When
10.1.2.1
I think that the estimates for the toll fees are obscene. In spite of all the socio-economic data
available the fees still reflect full market prices for a road running through this impoverished area.
No alternate routes are available for people for much of the route to travel if the road goes ahead.
This is not service delivery but extortion.
These opinions are noted. A possible range of toll tariffs associated with each of the proposed
mainline toll plazas has been included in Section 3.5.2 of the FSR and Volume 1 of the Draft/Final
EIR. According to SANRAL, the possible ranges of toll tariffs given are based on typical tariffs on
existing similar toll roads in South Africa and as such are highly speculative. Tariffs are usually
based on the length of toll road that is used. These tariffs also do NOT include regional or local
discounts or frequent user discounts. It should be further noted that the possible toll tariff ranges
provide some indication only as to what the potential toll tariffs at the various mainline toll plazas
could be and are based on 2006 prices. Ramp toll tariffs are determined on a comparable basis.
The actual toll tariffs to be levied if the toll highway is put into operation would be subject to a
competitive tender process and the Declaration of a Toll road process, including the negotiation
and determining of discounts before it can finally be approved and promulgated by the Minister of
Transport.
E
10.1.2.2
How much will it cost in total to travel from Durban to Mthatha (an estimate will do). Will this cost
outweigh travelling on the old N2 route both in time and cost or will it be more expensive?
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
E
According to the economic specialist report (Volume 4, Appendix 13), the proposed new toll
highway should benefit all users (along the entire length of the road) if the principle that “the toll fee
is less than the road user benefits” is applied.
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
220
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
Road user costs and benefits
No measure of mitigation will reduce the cost of travel for people using the proposed toll. Is it
an oversight that benefits to the road user are listed but none to the local population? The
positive cash flow would be in excess of R400 billion per annum when the toll road is fully
operational versus the cost of R1,774 billion – this would equate to extortion as most of the
road has been completed. The road user cost savings of R5996,2 million on the proposed
toll road between Mthatha and Port Shepstone does not seem realistic - the income received
from the road users at the average volumes for 2008 would approximate R421 billion – this
would be a cost to the road users and not a saving. It has been quoted that it will cost R265
for a return trip from Durban to East London – calculations show that the actual cost of the
trip will be less than R49 for a pleasant, safe and less stressful trip – the saving in time will
be 2hrs 20 min – at only R100/hr this is a bonus of R233. How will people residing between
Gonubie and Durban benefit in terms of economic development? Have toll fees been taken
into account when calculating the cost:benefit ratio? How many people will benefit from the
road? Who would benefit – people from rural areas or those from urban areas. Reduced
numbers of on and off ramps will result in increased distance to be travelled to get onto the
new toll road between Port Edward and Port St Johns – thus increased travel costs to the
Pondoland people. Would like to see a cost benefit exercise done for travelling from Port
Shepstone to Cape Town on the new road as opposed to going through the Free State.
Noted. According to SANRAL the stated estimated toll revenue is unrealistic. The economic
specialist study undertaken as part of the Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process included
investigation and assessment of road user costs and benefits (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 13 of
the Draft/Final EIR). The calculation of cost:benefit ratios (as per the Scoping Report) did not take
toll fees into account since in a cost benefit analysis toll fee payments are a transfer payment
between affected parties, and result in a zero sum when viewed from the perspective of the
economy as a whole.
S
10.1.3.1
It appears as if the plan is to profit the firms that will be involved in the construction of the road
rather than the communities close to it. The EIA presents little detail to dispel this suspicion.
According to SANRAL, its policy is not designed to maximize profits, but rather to balance the
needs of the road users (by way of an equitable toll) with the needs of the private sector (by way of
profit). SANRAL has indicated that all national road assets are owned by SANRAL (SANRAL has
to take physical title to such land in terms of legislation). A Concessionaire would merely take
custody of the land in order to carry out its obligations in terms of the concession contract.
Ownership of the assets are retained by SANRAL. The road would be upgraded and maintained
over the agreed concession period and then handed back to SANRAL at no cost and in good
condition. Annual increases in toll tariffs are usually linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The road would still require maintenance and further upgrades.
E
10.1.3.2
The economic benefits of this project are two-fold. The operating company will undoubtedly make
money, however it will re derived from charging the consumers for a product they previously had
free of charge. In the Eastern Cape the product may be much improved, but in Natal that is
debatable. The bottom line is that the "man in the street' will have less disposable income. The
investors will become richer and the previously disadvantaged will generally become poorer. A
proportion of the finance will be returned to the community through local employment opportunities,
but the implication is that this will only be a small proportion. The net result will be higher costs for
the general public. This economic benefit is therefore not in the best interest of the general public.
Refer to the response provided above.
E
10.1.3.3
Profit yields are not detailed and SANRAL has failed to outline how this development will
specifically help the communities it intends to toll.
SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, etc., would be
dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
E
Noted. SANRAL has also indicated that it has installed a large number of traffic counting stations
E
10.1.3
10.1.4
Monitoring of toll road to ensure benefits accrue to road users
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
221
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Based on other recent projects I suspect that the proposed toll road will get the go ahead in spite of
all objections lodged. Therefore in conclusion my major concern is that if the toll road goes ahead
the "benefits" are proven to be as per the predicted benefits and are maintained for the life of the
toll road and if these are not achieved measures are taken to bring them in line with the expected
or fees are adjusted accordingly. To this end the following steps need to be taken as a minimum:
Requirement that the operator of the proposed toll is to measure the impact of the toll road on
traffic diversion on an ongoing basis and take measures e.g. reduce toll fees to eliminate traffic
diversion. The waiting time at mainline tolls especially Isipingo needs to be monitored on an
ongoing basis. Should the waiting time exceed the amount allowed for to achieve the economic
benefits of the toll more toll booths will need to be installed and manned or alternatively the
mainline toll removed at Isipingo. These measures need to be in place for the life of the proposed
toll road. The mean travelling times and waiting time at the toll plazas as used in the benefit
calculations must be published. If the mean travelling times are not achieved, the toll fees will have
to be reduced in line with the reduced "benefit" to road users.
Response
on all possible alternative routes and has been monitoring these stations since 2004/5. The actual
impact of any diverted traffic could therefore be monitored and assessed over time if the proposed
toll highway were implemented; the quantum of any significant negative impacts could therefore
be calculated. SANRAL undertakes to mitigate such significant impacts should they occur.
An appropriate monitoring and review programme is also proposed in Section 6.3 of the traffic
specialist report, as follows: “... If the project is implemented by means of a BOT contract, the
Independent Engineer should be responsible for the strict monitoring and review of the
performance of the Concessionaire in respect of these mitigatory measures ...”
In addition, as part of any toll road project, SANRAL implements an overload control strategy with
the provincial and local authorities so that the overloading and the diversion of heavy vehicles can
be monitored and law enforcement be applied to mitigate this impact.
10.1.5
10.1.5.1
Benefits to road users of the Eastern Cape
Conversely the economic benefit to users transiting the Eastern Cape is plain, but this is an area of SANRAL has indicated that the positioning of toll plazas, determination of toll fees, etc., would be
such low economic capacity that toll fees will be an additional and inappropriate burden for local dealt with in the Declaration of Toll Road process as set out in Section 27 of the SANRAL and
communities. Only the commercial users stand to significantly benefit.
National Roads Act, 1998 – this process has not yet commenced. This process would only
commence if DEA were to authorise the proposed project, and the decision were to be upheld by
the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs after consideration of any appeals.
10.2
10.2.1
•
10.2.2
Impact on communities of Pondoland:
Better ways of spending money to benefit people of Pondoland
Rather than investing R2 billion into two massive bridges across the Msikaba and Mthentu
Gorges, why not invest R1million into 2,000 local development initiatives? [examples
provided]. A limited access toll road will disrupt existing communities and their access to
grazing lands, schools, shops, etc. – an impact assessment must be undertaken on the local
population along the new route between Port Edward and Port St Johns. The money could
be better spent on other initiatives in the area. Current population in the area does not need
the roads but more likely the infrastructure should be improved. Would be better to spend
money on improving the roads between the small towns and villages. The big beneficiary is
the through traffic from Durban to East London and the Consortium – the big scorers are not
the locals or South Africa as a whole [motivation provided]. Curious to see how the idea of
social and economic upliftment of local communities is measured because the same was said
for the Wild Coast casino [motivation provided]. To break the back of poverty you need to
upgrade the existing infrastructure. Rather spend the money on housing, roads, water and
electricity that benefit the people who need them.
Affordability for the people of Pondoland
Cannot support a toll road through Pondoland - the overwhelming majority of people of this
area cannot afford to pay the fee proposed – it would therefore only benefit those rich
enough to afford such high fees – is this equitable?
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
When
Although there may also be a need for local development initiatives, the main object of SANRAL,
as prescribed by the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, is the planning, design, construction,
operation, management, control, maintenance and rehabilitation of national roads. It is misleading
to suggest that the national road network need not be extended into a region because local
development initiatives can provide a suitable alternative. According to SANRAL, all regions in
South Africa are entitled to the benefit of a national road network and it is SANRAL’s obligation to
ensure that the network is developed appropriately.
E
S
The Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process included detailed investigation and assessment
of the potential social, biophysical and economic impacts of the proposed project.
The procedure for the Declaration of a Toll road and the determination of toll fees are prescribed by
the SANRAL and National Roads Act, 1998, and must take place in accordance therewith. The Act
itself specifically requires a public participation process for the Declaration of a Toll road. It should
be noted that the economic specialist study undertaken during the Impact Assessment phase of
the EIA process included an evaluation of the economic sustainability (including equity and
efficiency) of the proposed project.
222
S
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
10.2.3
Impact on existing communities
Impact on existing communities must be investigated if the SANRAL preferred route is
followed. The road will impact on illegal dagga plantations of people who can’t do without it
and who don’t have jobs. How will the Ndwalane toll plaza affect people travelling to Port St
Johns from Lusikisiki and the villages between?
The Impact Assessment phase of the EIA process involved detailed investigation and assessment
of the potential social and economic impacts of the proposed project on existing communities.
S
10.2.4
Economic benefits for Pondoland
If a project of this nature is needed with local economic development initiatives to create jobs
then it has to get some form of support – question of finding the right balance. If Khanyayo
community together with Mkamela community accept the new road proposal with both arms
[motivation provided]. The road will open numerous development opportunities as well as
the accompanying employment opportunities which are currently non-existent [motivation
provided]. Opportunity that will help to change the lives of people [motivation provided].
What are the benefits to the local communities at the toll plazas? To what extent will locals
benefit – not only during construction but on an ongoing basis? What is the reason for
saying that the project will bring business to the area? [motivation provided]. Economic
benefits would be for the rich and not for the poor. Request assurance that people along the
coast would benefit from the project [motivation provided]. No need for a road without any
improvement of the economy. Are there other development plans?
What are these
economic benefits that everyone is claiming? It is good for people and business. The road
is the priority in terms of economic development in the Wild Coast and also in job creation.
The locals won’t benefit – how are you going to force road users off the road through the
Transkei? Is one of the purposes to provide employment in the greenfields section or is it
just to create a shorter route? - is it meant to open up that region to economic activity? It
will create job opportunities and fight poverty in Lusikisiki. The loss to ecosystems by the
new road greatly reduces the development of tourism – meanwhile existing developments on
the N2 or R61 will have stagnated or possibly died by being bypassed – overall development
of Pondoland will be reduced. What relief is there to the inhabitants when the road is
nowhere near the towns.
Noted. SANRAL has indicated that all national road assets are owned by SANRAL (SANRAL has
to take physical title to such land in terms of legislation). For the proposed concession project, the
Concessionaire would merely take custody of the land in order to carry out its obligations in terms
of the concession contract. Ownership of the assets is retained by SANRAL. The road would be
upgraded and maintained over the concession period and then handed back to SANRAL at no cost
and in good condition.
S
The N2 Toll Road is said to be necessary to promote development in the highly impoverished
Pondoland Region. The road proposed by SANRAL next to the coast will create more poverty in
Pondoland for the following reasons:
Pondoland has the potential to become a National or Provincial park to rival the Kruger National
Park (KNP), the iSimangaliso Wetland Park (formerly called St Lucia Wetland Park) in Zululand
and the Ukhahlamba Drakensberg Park (UDP). It would be inconceivable to build a Toll Road
through the KNP. The N2 Toll Road that feeds iSimangaliso Park is in most places at least 50 kms
away from the Park. It is necessary to take access roads off the N2 to reach the iSimangaliso Park,
leaving the Park’s integrity intact. The nearest toll road to the UDP is 100 kms and more away from
the UDP. Most parts of the KNP are far from a toll road. Many thousands of visitors visit these
prime tourist attractions of our country. They create thousands of jobs for the communities living in
the vicinity, in areas that would otherwise be greatly impoverished. More and more jobs are being
created as the potential tourism growth nodes in the iSimangaliso Park, are recognised and
It should be noted that the EIA included consideration of the potential impacts of the proposed toll
highway in terms of reduction in the extent of ecological components of the Pondoland Centre of
Endemism, reduction in the opportunity to undertake effective conservation, biodiversity planning
and establishment of conservation areas, increased accessibility to environmentally sensitive areas
(from a tourism perspective), etc. Moreover, an evaluation of the ecological sustainability of the
proposed toll highway is provided in the vegetation and flora specialist report (Volume 2, Appendix
1) and Section 14.1, Volume 1 of the Draft/Final EIR.
10.2.4.1
CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd
According to SANRAL, legislation does not allow local people to have a stake in the toll plazas.
However, local people and businesses could invest in the project and therewith become part
owners.
E
Furthermore, the potential heritage impacts of the proposed toll highway are addressed in the
cultural and historical heritage specialist report (Volume 3, Appendix 7) and Part C, Volume 1 of
the Draft/Final EIR.
223
December 2009
Proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway: Final EIR – Comments Report on Draft EIR
No.
Sub-Category, Issue and Concern
Response
When
exploited to benefit the local people in accordance with the principles of “People and Parks” Sustainable Development, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), and Conservation. These principles
were promulgated by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and are legally binding on
the South African Government, one of the signatories. Please consult the iSimangaliso Website
www.iSimangaliso.com to find examples of this work. The Global Environment Facility
administered by the World Bank is set to pour millions of rand into the area in the next 5 years. The
proposed SANRAL Toll Road will prevent the AmaMpondo from similarly benefiting from their
unique geophysical and cultural heritage because the Toll road would make it impossible for the
area to be recognised as a World Heritage Site. This would be grossly unfair to a people that has
been exploited for more than 125 years by the mines in Kimberley and the Witwatersrand. To
prevent the Indigenous People of Pondoland from having the opportunity to develop a new World
Heritage Site on their ancestral lands, while creating thousands of sustainable work opportunities
for many generations to come, is grossly unjust. It is tantamount to being a crime against humanity
because it not only deprives the Pondo People of this opportunity, but the whole of humanity who
would stand to benefit from the recognition of a unique new piece of world heritage.
Pondoland has the globally unique and important Pondoland Centre of Plant Endemism. A Toll
Road would destroy parts of this Plant Endemism before it has been fully researched. There are
doubtless many plants that would be discovered for ABS to benefit the AmaMpondo.
The uniquely beautiful coastlands, estuaries and marine reserves ought to be conserved to benefit
South Africa’s threatened fisheries.
The Pondo huma