|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inquiry into Rural Road Safety and Infrastructure
 |
 |
 |
  |
A Specific Focus on Reducing Rural Road Trauma
Municipal Road Safety Strategies
Local Government Road Safety Officers
Safety Audits of Proposed Projects
Safety Reviews of Existing Rural Roads
Ongoing Review of Arterial Road Hierarchies
More Consistent Management of Local Roads
Land Use Planning
In addition to the physical road infrastructure options described in the previous chapter there are a number of `off-road' initiatives which also should be considered.
An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Expert Group considers that rural road safety is a sleeping giant.1 Their report Safety Strategies for Rural Roads states that:
Though there are some emerging rural policies in road safety programs in some countries, for the vast majority the rural road safety policies are buried among urban, motorway and national safety goals and programs.2
The same applies in Australia where neither The National Road Safety Strategy 2000-2010 nor Victoria's Road Safety Strategy 2002-2007 has a specific focus on rural road safety.3 This is despite the issue being raised nationally in the Towards an Action Plan for Rural Road Safety review prepared by the then Federal Office of Road Safety in 1995.4
The Committee considers that there is an adequate management focus by VicRoads on the safety of rural State Highways and Freeways, but the situation is not as satisfactory for the Main Road and local road parts of the rural network usually managed by municipalities. This was amply demonstrated by the much higher casualty crash rates on the latter roads - particularly the open country local roads - presented in Chapter 4.
Recommendation
43. That there be a specific concentrated focus on reducing road trauma on rural Main Roads and local roads.
Under the Saferoads Initiative municipalities are being encouraged to develop their own local government road safety strategies.5 The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) believes that developing a road safety strategy and recognising it in the Corporate Plan is an important milestone in local government renewing their commitment to road safety.6
A Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) survey reveals that the majority of rural councils currently conduct some form of road safety program:
The most common road safety initiatives currently being undertaken by rural councils are road safety audits, followed by road safety strategies and road hierarchy programs.7
Some municipalities have made good progress. The Latrobe City Road Safety Strategic Plan is an excellent example.8 However the Committee observed during the hearings a low level of knowledge and use of road safety techniques. Mr G. Smith, Director, Assets and Infrastructure, Pyrenees Shire Council, acknowledged:
We need to think of safety as much as we do of infrastructure condition. It has been a poor cousin up until now. 9
In response to a request from the Committee, VicRoads stated that as at August 2001:
Fifteen councils have completed development of their strategies. Further actions are underway to provide improved crash data, training, road safety implementation packages and marketing support.10
The Committee strongly supports the development and implementation of municipal road safety strategic plans to encourage local commitment to road safety actions and does not think this is happening fast enough.
Recommendation
44. That all rural municipalities develop and implement road safety strategic plans.
The Committee was impressed by the use in New South Wales of Road Safety Officers employed by municipalities to provide local road safety education and publicity. The Roads and Traffic Authority and the municipality equally share the cost.
While mindful of the Community Road Safety Council scheme in Victoria, the Committee considered that the NSW system was more integrated and co-ordinated and makes the municipalities more accountable. The Committee asked VicRoads to comment.
VicRoads replied that they had investigated a number of different models for the Saferoads Local Government Road Safety initiative including the NSW Local Government program. The Saferoads partners (MAV, the Local Government Professionals group LGPro, Victoria Police, RACV, Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and VicRoads) decided on a different model than NSW because:
Victoria had the network of Community Road Safety Councils (CRSCs) which were providing many locally based road safety programs
VicRoads had a regional network of Road Safety Officers (RSOs)/Co-ordinators that provided a broad range of support to CRSCs, local governments and schools
The investigation of NSW's program indicated that much of the efforts from the RSOs went into developing local road safety materials. The Saferoads model is to centrally develop a number of road safety implementation packages together with local government so that they can be used by all municipalities and CRSCs.
The Saferoads initiative is targeting key areas of local government such as planners, risk managers, engineers, human services and public relation officers. The aim of this approach is to transfer knowledge with a view to long term adoption of road safety practices/programs by local government.11
The Committee believes having a dedicated Road Safety Officer is necessary to ensure that municipal road safety programs are implemented. VicRoads currently provides only limited funding to Community Road Safety Councils. The Committee considers there should be a substantial funding contribution by VicRoads for Road Safety Officer positions. For municipalities with smaller populations the cost to a municipality of a Road Safety Officer might be shared with neighbouring municipalities. This would assist in allowing `regional' ideas and programs to be introduced.
Recommendation
45. That road safety officer positions be created at a local government level to promote road safety both within the council and in the wider community, with substantial financial assistance from VicRoads.
The RACV state that:
Road safety audit is a formal examination of an existing or future road or traffic project, or any project that interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified examiner looks at the project's crash potential and safety performance.12
There are five stages in a project when a road safety audit can be carried out: feasibility, draft design, detailed design, pre-opening, and existing road.
The earlier the audit is conducted the greater the potential safety gains relative to the cost of the corrective action. Formal audits greatly reduce the risk of subsequent safety problems that are expensive to fix. The benefit in terms of avoiding crashes and expensive remedial measures has been found to far exceed the cost of audits.13 The cost of an audit is low:
... something in the order of 0.2% to 0.5% of the total project cost.14
A road safety audit is required by VicRoads for all projects submitted for the blackspot programs and for a range of other programs. Table 7.1 provides details of the latest road safety audit requirements.
Table 7.1 Project Audit Requirements for Statewide Blackspot Program
Project estimated cost |
Road safety audit requirement |
> $2 million |
Audit all stages |
$150,000 to $2 million |
Audit at least two stages |
< $150,000 |
Audit at least one design stage, except for projects of a minor nature such as signage, linemarking and hazard removal |
Shoulder sealing projects |
Audit pre-opening stage for at least 20 per cent of such projects implemented in any year |
Source: VicRoads submission, Table 19, p. 62.
In conjunction with the Local Government Professionals (LGPro) group, VicRoads hosts road safety audit training workshops for professionals working in this area, including VicRoads staff, local government staff and consultants.
The process and practice of road safety audit is well advanced in Australia and many overseas countries now look to Australia for world best practice.
From an initial focus on safety audits on existing roads, audits of the planning and design phases are now becoming increasingly important, with high returns on investment. 15Safety audits are conducted in accordance with the Austroads Road Safety Audit Guidelines.16 It is understood that a new Austroads Roads Safety Audit publication is due soon.17 In a change in terminology the examination of the safety condition of existing roads will now be termed `safety reviews'.
The Committee heard concerns about the extent of road safety audits done by municipalities. For example, the RACV stated that:
In 1998, around 60% of Victorian municipalities did not use road safety audits and only around 40% undertook at least one audit per project (Daly et al, 1998). This was despite a wide acceptance of the potential benefits and low costs of audits amongst council decision-makers. Although there is anecdotal evidence to suggest the rate of use is slowly increasing, there remains reluctance in local government to commit resources to this proactive safety tool.18
In a paper presented at the 2001 New South Wales Local Government Road Safety Conference, Mr P. Jordan of VicRoads stated that the rate of adoption of road safety audit within local government in Australia has been slow:
This has led to speculation about the level of commitment to this task by senior management of these organisations in Australia.19
He went on to mention that there could be merit in considering legislating the audits to become a compulsory part of the process:
While large projects (generally administered by State agencies) are usually audited, generally at each stage, other small projects - such as traffic management improvements - are tending to be left unaudited.
This adds to the concerns about commitment by local government that is responsible for fewer of the large projects and more of the small ones.
The question of whether or not the road safety audit process will eventually have to be legislated for, or be made an essential element for the receipt of government funding before it becomes an integral part of the road design process for all projects, has been asked?20
The Borough of Queenscliffe supported the need for possible legislation, both in their submission and as stated by engineer, Mr P. Austin at a public hearing: 21... if such an audit was compulsory that would really lift the culture of road safety into design work.22
The Committee agrees with the RACV who:
... believes that more encouragement for local government to commit to road safety audits is necessary. Additional requirements for the use of road safety audits on projects funded by state grants may be one option worthy of further consideration.23
Recommendation
46. That road safety audits be mandatory on any road project having a State Government funding contribution.
Until recently the term `road safety audits' applied to audits during the various phases of a new road project and to those of existing roads. There has now been a change in terminology with `safety audits' referring to new projects and `safety reviews' applying to existing roads.24The Roadsafe Western District submission commented on the gradual deterioration of many smaller roads and considered it would be beneficial to conduct a comprehensive audit of country roads.25The Committee agrees with the recent Queensland Parliament Travelsafe Committee observation that:
... rural councils may be reluctant to spend limited funds on audits to document safety problems with their roads when they haven't the funds needed to repair the problems they already know about.26
The Queensland Committee is currently seeking public comment on whether investment in large-scale auditing of low-volume road networks is both desirable and viable for rural local governments, and what is an appropriate level of audit activity.27
Following a recent High Court ruling on `Duty of Care', road agencies and municipalities will need to give careful consideration to the extent to which they undertake safety reviews of the existing road network.28
At a minimum there would seem to be value in at least analysing current crash data for locations or areas with a high risk, and having documented plans to assess those locations in further detail and undertake a program of treatments.
The Committee agrees with a conclusion by Victorian road safety experts, Mr P. Daly, et al, that:
Local government must confront the issues that are preventing greater implementation of road safety audit and proactively determine how they can meet the challenges.29
Recommendation
47. That safety reviews of existing roads be undertaken on a regular basis to improve road safety and satisfy potential legal liability requirements.
In the rapidly changing rural economy in Victoria, arterial road hierarchy reviews are an ongoing task. A review of arterial road guidelines or their interpretation in the light of modern-day road use could see some current local roads being upgraded to arterial status or the reverse. Similarly, within the arterial categories of M, A, B and C, some arterial roads may need to be re-categorised. The ongoing review of arterial road hierarchies is important for the operational management of the rural road network.
A particular feature of some local roads is the lack of consistency between municipalities in terms of road characteristics and management. This has road safety implications, as consistency and predictability are key cornerstones of a safer road system.
The rural arterial network is managed by VicRoads, but the rural local road network is managed by about 40 municipalities. The road user travelling across municipal boundaries on local roads can sometimes be faced with quite different road practices. The physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and heavy vehicle numbers in residential streets in towns are an example where a wide variety of sometimes confusing approaches has been used.
The Committee supports local initiatives to improve road safety and the infrastructure provided for travellers and residents. However municipalities should always bear in mind the importance of presenting a consistent, clearly understood road environment, free of hazardous surprises. This applies especially to road signs, pavement markings, roadside furniture and other visual indications of potential road hazards.
Recommendation
48. That, to provide a more consistent and hence safer local road network, there should be a more uniform approach to the management of local roads across municipalities.
Municipal Local Road Hierarchy Plans local road hierarchy plans
One example of the need for a more consistent approach to local road management is local road hierarchy plans. A number of rural municipalities have undertaken, or are undertaking, road hierarchy studies, but there was no consistency in the categories used. Examples include:
Inter-regional roads, principal local roads, access roads.30
Eleven categories of local road, including link, collector, access and minor roads.31
Deciding what functional category a particular road is in is the first step in determining the appropriate road management actions, such as funding responsibility, maintenance standards and the design criteria to be used for any physical upgrading of the road and its associated bridges.
There is a long history of functional classification of arterial roads by state road agencies using national guidelines. There are currently no Victorian or national guidelines for local road hierarchies. However, recently ARRB Transport Research has done some work for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the agency responsible for roads and tracks in Victorian forests. The published report provides guidance on road classifications, geometric designs and maintenance standards for low volume roads.32 The methodology could be extended to encompass rural local roads managed by municipalities.
The Netherlands road safety strategy Sustainable Safety puts considerable emphasis on the functional use of the road system. This includes the identification of different road functions and formulated design features to serve those functions.33 Local road hierarchies are therefore not just about managing infrastructure assets effectively, but are also important in systematically improving road safety.
The Committee considers there is a need for professional guidance in the consistent use of rural local road hierarchy categories. It would be desirable to at least obtain Victoria-wide consistency, though preferable to have a nationally consistent approach to this task. VicRoads, the Department of Infrastructure and LGPro have a role in providing this guidance.
Recommendation
49. That municipalities establish rural local road hierarchy plans using common categories.
According to VicRoads, road safety should be a prime consideration in land use planning.34 The Committee supports this view and hence the VicRoads recommendation that:
Increased consideration be given to road safety issues in the land use development process through inclusion of specific requirements in the proposed new Residential Code for Victoria, currently under development by the Department of Infrastructure (Planning).35
The Committee noted that a draft Road Safety and Land Use Guide entitled Safer Urban Environments has been prepared, setting out the key road safety issues and providing checklists to be used at the various stages of the planning process, namely:
Strategic/metropolitan plan
Outline development/local structure plan
Subdivision plan
Arterial road/corridor plan
Commercial/infill development plan.
The Guidelines provide a quick and easy reference resource for developers and planning consultants who prepare development proposals and for local and State Government officials who assess and approve those proposals.36
Recommendation
50. That increased consideration be given to road safety issues in the land use development process through inclusion of specific requirements in relevant planning codes.
43. That there be a specific concentrated focus on reducing road trauma on rural Main Roads and local roads.
44. That all rural municipalities develop and implement road safety strategic plans.
45. That road safety officer positions be created at a local government level to promote road safety both within the council and in the wider community, with substantial financial assistance from VicRoads.
46. That road safety audits be mandatory on any road project having a State Government funding contribution.
47. That safety reviews of existing roads be undertaken on a regular basis to improve road safety and satisfy potential legal liability requirements.
48. That, to provide a more consistent and hence safer local road network, there should be a more uniform approach to the management of local roads across municipalities.
49. That municipalities establish rural local road hierarchy plans using common categories.
50. That increased consideration be given to road safety issues in the land use development process through inclusion of specific requirements in relevant planning codes.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last update
March 27, 2002
Copyright
- Disclaimer