« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SEVEN: HOW COULD ROAD SAFETY BE FUNDED MORE EFFECTIVELY?
7.1 At present, funding for transport and road safety is provided to local authorities by the Scottish Government. Each local authority can then decide their priorities and allocate their resources accordingly. The Scottish Government also funds Road Safety Scotland and RoSPA's road safety activities in Scotland. Some funding for road safety also comes from private enterprise.
7.2 In response to the question 'How should road safety be funded more effectively?' 70 consultees (74%) commented. A shown in Chart 7.1, key comments made were in relation to funding being provided or administered by Scottish Government (24%; 17 organisations) or that ring-fencing should not be removed (23%; 13 organisations and 3 individuals). A further 17% felt there should be funding for road maintenance (12 organisations) and 16% suggested relating road safety to enforcement, education and engineering (11 organisations). Fourteen percent wanted to see funding made available from central funds/local taxation (8 organisations and 2 individuals) and the same proportion (14%) recommended the ring-fencing of funds (10 organisations).
Chart 7.1
Theme 4: How could road safety be funded more effectively?
Base: 70 consultees
7.3 There was support from consultees that the Scottish Government should be funding road safety:
"The [xxx] would urge the Scottish Government to note that investment in saving lives on the roads offers proportionally greater value for money than saving lives on the railway."
(Transport Organisation)
"The Scottish Government needs to show its commitment by providing appropriate funding. The number of people injured or killed on our roads is falling and it is critical that appropriate funding is continued. The economic cost of road accidents to society should be used by the Scottish Government to ensure that appropriate funding is made available from central and local government for road safety."
(Local Authority)
7.4 A variety of comments was received from consultees in relation to the reduction of ring-fenced resources permitting local authorities to allocate resources according to locally determined priorities. From the comments received on this issue, just over one in 5 consultees (23%) (3 individuals, 13 organisations) thought ring-fencing should not be removed and that some level of ring-fencing should remain.
"It might be beneficial in retaining some level of ring-fenced road safety funding with local authorities allocating additional funding based on local requirements."
(Local Authority)
"Funding for road safety should be set at a level that reflects its importance to the communities. It should also be ring-fenced to ensure that it is protected against local pressures and to provide a consistency throughout Scotland,"
(Safety Organisation)
7.5 Across different organisation types, consultees expressed their concern that the new arrangement will lead to difficulties in the allocation of road safety funding across Scotland by local authorities.
"While there are benefits in this there is also a real danger that in some Local Authority areas, funding for road safety, road improvements and maintenance may be reduced."
(Police)
"The reduction in ring-fencing of local authority budgets poses a serous potential risk to road safety. In light of the overriding public health importance of preventing road casualties, special arrangements may need to be implemented to protect this sphere of local authority activity."
(Individual)
"The recent removal of road safety and sustainable transport ringfenced funding could have a significant effect on the spending on road safety engineering, accident investigation and prevention, and safer routes to schools/school travel plan measures and schemes."
(Local Authority)
7.6 Table 7.1 provides a list of other suggestions (cited by 13% or less of consultees) on how road safety should be funded more effectively.
Table 7.1
Theme 4: Other ways in which road safety could be funded more effectively
Action(s) | No | % |
|---|
Funds should be sufficient for the community area/Local funding/Local authorities | 9 | 13 |
|---|
Funding through Sponsorship | 9 | 13 |
|---|
Adequate funding of Road Safety Scotland | 8 | 11 |
|---|
Funding should be provided/administered by local/regional government | 8 | 11 |
|---|
Funding provided by WoSRSF, RSS, RoSPA, RSU, CWSS, SLAS | 6 | 9 |
|---|
Funding should be based on casualty rates/reduction | 6 | 9 |
|---|
Engage fully with community safety partnerships | 5 | 7 |
|---|
Funding should be based on road types/length of roads/maintenance | 5 | 7 |
|---|
Funding levels should be based on population | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Fines from speeding, bus lane violations, red light cameras, dangerous parking could be reinvested locally into safety improvements | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Funding for police | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Clearer targets outlined in Single Outcome Agreements | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Funding for new/continuing initiatives | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Ring fenced funding is not necessarily sufficient | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Ring fencing needs to be targeted to specific road safety initiatives | 4 | 6 |
|---|
Funding should not ONLY be targeted at trunk and motorway links | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Realistic targets set so an improvement can be seen where road improvements have been made/monitor effectiveness | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Funds made available and directed to road safety units | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Auditing of funding | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Introduce a Road Safety Forum | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Safety camera partnerships | 3 | 4 |
|---|
Make funding available to have a modern transport system | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Taxes on motoring going back into improving the road network and road safety | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Research funding allocated to universities and research agencies | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Research into better use of smart signs | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Road safety national theme | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Encourage participation from the private sector | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Funding for Kerbcraft | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Funding targeted at specific groups (young drivers/elderly/those in poorer areas) | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Increased proportion of government spending for road safety/transport | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Finding road safety saves money in longer term ( NHS/emergency services/public health etc) | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Criticisms of the 'stop/start' nature of ring fenced funding/administrative inefficiency | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Ring fencing should/could remain in effect but alternative funding arrangements ought to be made available | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Funding should be based on ethnicity/ethnic residents | 2 | 3 |
|---|
Funding should be provided/administered by the UK government/Westminster | 2 | 3 |
|---|
In summary:
The issues emerging in relation to funding was that this should be administered by the Scottish Government and that ring-fencing should not be removed.
« Previous | Contents | Next »