| |
|
There are a number of
justifications for ring-fencing to be employed. Firstly, in modern ‘free’
markets it is often claimed that taxpayers frequently object to paying taxes
for the public good, but instead demand that they see some direct return for
their money. In the UK this has been a frequently raised issue with regard to the
comparatively high vehicle license tax and poor state of public highways.
However, this argument is a very narrow view of how, ideally, ring-fencing
should work. When viewed from the wider ‘polluter pays’ perspective, the car
driver should not expect his road tax to be spent solely on improving
conditions for him. The costs should be shared much more widely to compensate
for the wider effects of his (and others) transport choice. These include
contributing towards the costs of road accidents, helping cover the costs of
people who suffer ill-health through pollution or stress related to noise, and
building safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists away from roads. It can even
be argued that car drivers should directly subsidise certain bus routes that
are not financially viable due to under-use.
The highest profile use of ring
fencing is where fiscal measures are used as a direct disincentive for people
to drive (as in cases such as the congestion charge, the fuel-duty escalator,
or parking place charges). In these cases it is necessary to provide a ‘carrot’
in addition to the ‘stick’ of financial penalties. For example, where access to
a city centre is restricted using congestion/road-user charging, this is only
justifiable if there are adequate good-quality public transport options
available. Although a charge itself will bring about some possible improvement
in bus operation due to less congested roads, if the revenue obtained from
those people still opting to drive is used to further improve the public
transport options than a much greater modal shift can be achieved. |