ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
by
Narelle Haworth
Naomi Kowadlo
August, 1999
Report No. 163
11
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Date
Report No.
ISBN
0732614627
163
Au~st 1999
Title and sub-title:
Road safety programs undertaken by local government
Author(s)
N. Haworth and N. Kowadlo
Pages
42p + app
Type of Report & Period Covered:
Final; 1997-1999
Sponsoring Organisation(s):
This project was funded through the Centre's Baseline Research Program for which grants
have been received from:
Roads Corporation (VicRoads)
Department of Justice
TransE0rt Accident Commission
Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd
Abstract:
This report presents the results of a mail survey of road safety programs undertaken by local
government in Victoria in 1998. The aims of the study were to
•
set a base measure to gauge the effectiveness of the Road Safety in Local Government
Initiative
•
highlight current road safety activities, and
•
identify opportunities to promote road safety initiatives.
The survey had a good response rate and provided general and detailed information about
road safety programs undertaken by local government. Road safety was mentioned in the
strategic planning documents of about half of the Councils who responded. Provision of safe
infrastructure was the major focus of road safety in planning and in expenditure terms. Size
of the Council was a major determinant of its involvement in road safety (rather than
metropolitan or regional location), however, among Councils of the same size, some were
much more involved in road safety than others.
Recommendations for the repeat survey are made. A telephone follow-up of 10 Councils (7
metropolitan and 3 in regional Victoria) identified a range of road safety initiatives and
activities currently undertaken by municipalities and opportunities to promote such initiatives.
KeyWords:
road safety, local government
Reproduction of this page is authorised
Disclaimer
Monash University Accident Research Centre,
Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia.
Telephone: +61 399054371, Fax: +61 399054363
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
111
IV
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Contents
EXEC UTIVE SUM MARY
ix
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1
1.1.1 Earlier surveys
1.2 AIMS
1
3
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
3
5
2.0 METHOD
2.1 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS
5
2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
.5
2.3 FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES
5
2.4 ANALySIS
6
7
3.0 RES ULTS
3.1 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
7
3.1.1 Response rate
3.1.2 Business units responding
3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
7
7
7
FOR ROAD SAFETY
3.3 ROAD SAFETY IN COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES
10
3.3.1 Corporate Plan
3.3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement.
3.3.3 Municipal Health Plan
3.3.4 Road Safety Plans or Strategies
3.3.5 Allocation of resources for road safety activities
3.4 ROAD SAFETY ACTNITIES
10
12
13
14
16
18
3.4.1 Road safety activities during 1997/98
3.4.2 Proposed programs for 1998/99
3.4.3 Partners in road safety
3.4.4 Training
3.5 ROAD SAFETY -RELATED ACTNITIES
18
20
21
21
23
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
Safety audits
Enforcement
Street trees
Pedestrians
Motorcyclists
Bicyclists
4.0 FOLLOW-UP OF COUNCILS & OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE ROAD SAFETY
23
24
25
26
26
26
29
4.1 PLANNING FOR ROAD SAFETY
29
4.2 IMPROVING ROAD SAFETY WHEN OTHER CHANGES OCCUR
29
4.3 INTEGRATION OF ROAD SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
29
4.4 WORKING WITH COMMUNITY ROAD SAFETY COUNCILS
30
4.5 RAISING THE PROFILE OF ROAD SAFETY
.30
4.6 EFFECTS OF AMALGAMATION AND OUTSOURCING
.31
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
V
4.7 ROAD SAFETY BEYOND ENGINEERING
31
4.8 FROM TRAINING TO PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
31
4.9 SUMMARy
31
5.0 DISC USSION
33
5.1 RESPONSE RATB
33
5.1.1 Failure to return the questionnaire
5.1.2 Nonresponse to particular questionnaire items
5.2 COMPARISONS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL
REGIONAL COUNCILS
33
33
34
5.3 BASELINE MEASURES
34
5.3.1 Roles and responsibilities for road safety
5.3.2 Road safety in Council plans and strategies
5.3.3 Resourcing road safety
5.3.4 Road safety activities
5.3.5 Training
5.3.6 Road safety-related activities
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS/ISSUES FOR REPEATING THE SURVEy
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
5.4.1 Changing questionnaire items
5.4.2 Method of comparison between surveys
5.4.3 Timing of repeat survey
38
38
38
41
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 BASELINE SURVEY
41
6.2 REPEATING THE SURVEy
42
6.3 ROAD SAFETY INITIATNES
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
6.4 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES
42
43
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
45
RE FE RENCES
47
APPENDIX ONE QUESTIONNAIRE
49
APPENDIX TWO DESCRIPTIONS OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES
M ENTIONED IN CORPORATE PLANS
61
VI
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Tables
TABLE
2.1
COMPARISON
REGIONAL
TABLE
TABLE
3.1
3.2
OF ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR
VICTORIA.
1997/98
TYPE OF BUSINESS UNIT OR DEPARTMENT
,
3.3
TYPES OF BUSINESS UNITS OR DEPARTMENTS
TABLE
3.4
WHETHER
TABLE
3.5
NUMBERS
TABLE
3.6
NUMBERS
SAFETY.
MULTIPLE
OF METROPOLITAN,
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
3.9
OF METROPOLITAN,
MULTIPLE
IN THEIR CORPORATE
,
IN THEIR MUNICIPAL
STRATEGIC
MENTIONED
IN THEIR MUNICIPAL
HEALTH
TABLE
3.12
REASONS
TABLE
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
STRATEGIC
WHO MENTIONED
14
PLANS
IN THE MUNICIPAL
HEALTH
PLAN.
14
RESPONSES ALLOWED
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
WHY METROPOLITAN,
ROAD SAFETY PLAN.
COUNCILS
EXPENDITURE
WITH A ROAD
14
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
MULTIPLE
DO NOT HAVE A
ON VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY-RELATED
FULL-TIME
MULTIPLE
RESPONSES
ALLOWED
1997-98
ACTIVITIES DURING
STAFF SERVICE ROAD SAFETY
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS FOR VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY ACTIVITIES DURING THE
1997/98
FINANCIAL
19
,
TABLE
3.17
FACTORS
ALLOWED
'"
TABLE
3.18
3.19
WAYS IN WHICH THE ROAD SAFETY ACTNITIES
WERE EV ALUA TED
THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS.
PROPOSED
ROAD OR TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES FOR THE
RESPONSES ALLOWED
TABLE
3.20
ORGANISATIONS
TABLE
3.21
TRAINING
TABLE
3.22
TRAINING
TABLE
3.23
DOES COUNCIL
TABLE
3.24
3.25
3.26
3.27
3.28
3.29
WHAT PERCENTAGE
RESPONSES
MULTIPLE
RESPONSES
20
21
MULTIPLE
1998/99
FINANCIAL YEAR.
22
,
WHICH COUNCIL
COLLABORATES
WITH TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY. MULTIPLE
22
ALLOWED
THAT STAFF RECEIVE IN ORDER TO DELIVER ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS.
RESPONSES ALLOWED
'"
MULTIPLE
23
,
THAT WOULD ASSIST COUNCIL
TO DELNER
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS.
MULTIPLE
23
RESPONSES ALLOWED
SYSTEM?
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
15
.16
17
18
RESPONSES ALLOWED
IDENTIFY AND PRIORITISE ROAD SAFETY ISSUES.
MANY EQUIVALENT
YEAR
TABLE
13
STATEMENTS
IN THE MUNICIPAL
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
OR PROGRAMS
NUMBERS OF METROPOLITAN,
SAFETY PLAN OR STRATEGy
TABLE
WHO MENTIONED
13
3.11
How
MULTIPLE
ALLOWED
TABLE
TABLE
PLANS.
12
TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES MENTIONED
TABLE
WHO MENTIONED
,
3.10
How
11
PLANS
IN THEIR CORPORATE
TABLE
MULTIPLE
WHO MENTIONED
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
RESPONSES
PLAN AS A
11
OR INITIATIVES
OR PROGRAMS
OF METROPOLITAN,
ROAD SAFETY INITIATNES
IN THE CORPORATE
PLAN
TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIA TNES
NUMBERS
FOR ROAD/TRAFFIC
9
WERE MENTIONED
'"
ROAD SAFETY INITIATIVES
TABLE
8
,
WHICH HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY
ALLOWED
STATEMENT.
FOR ROAD/TRAFFIC
,
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
SPECIFIC ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
3.8
6
8
THE SURVEy
LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
OR INITIATIVES
OF METROPOLITAN,
NUMBERS
AND
RESPONSES ALLOWED
FUNCTION OF PERIOD OF THE CORPORATE
TABLE
,
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATNES
RESPONSES
MELBOURNE
OF VICTORIA
WHICH HAS THE MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY
,
TABLE
3.7
IN METROPOLITAN
ASSOCIATION
TYPE OF BUSINESS UNIT OF THE PRIMARY PERSON WHO COMPLETED
SAFETY
TABLE
FOR COUNCILS
DATA SUPPLIED BY THE MUNICIPAL
HAVE A POLICY OF CONDUCTING
REGULAR SAFETY AUDITS OF THE EXISTING ROAD
'"
,
OF NEW WORKS ARE CURRENTLY
,
AUDITED?
THE ROLES THAT PARKING OFFICERS PLAY IN ROAD SAFETY.
MULTIPLE
COUNCIL
INVOLVEMENT
IN VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY-RELATED
ACTNITIES
COUNCIL
INVOLVEMENT
IN VARIOUS PEDESTRIAN
COUNCIL
INVOLVEMENT
IN VARIOUS MOTORCYCLE
MEAN LENGTHS OF BICYCLE PATHS AND LANES.
EACH MEAN ARE IN BRACKETS
SAFETY ACTNITIES
RESPONSES
ALLOWED
...............•...............................
AND BICYCLE SAFETY ACTNITIES
NUMBERS
OF COUNCILS
WHO PROVIDED DA TA TO
28
,
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
24
24
25
26
27
28
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
VU
V11l
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aims of the study were to
•
set a base measure to gauge the effectiveness of the Road Safety in Local Government
Initiative,
•
highlight current road safety initiatives, and
•
identify opportunities to promote road safety initiatives.
BASELINE SURVEY
The baseline survey was conducted by means of a mail questionnaire sent to all Councils in
Victoria in October 1998. The survey had a good response rate and provided general and
detailed information about road safety programs undertaken by local government.
Size of the Council (as measured by annual budget) was a major determinant of its
involvement in road safety (rather than metropolitan or regional location). However, among
Councils of the same size, some were much more involved in road safety than others.
Road safety was mentioned in strategic planning documents of about half of the Councils who
responded. Provision of safe infrastructure was the major focus of road safety in planning and
in expenditure terms. Interestingly, recent plans and strategies were more likely to mention
road safety, indicating a growing awareness of this issue.
Very few Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy. The most commonly reported methods
of identifying and prioritising road safety issues for a Road Safety Plan were community
feedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments. Insufficient resources
was the most commonly cited reason for not having a Road Safety Plan. There was a small
number of Councils without a Road Safety Strategy who were keen to develop one. However,
some Councils who could not locate their Road Safety Plans.
Road construction and/or realignment was the largest and most common type of road safetyrelated expenditure.
Other large expenditures were local area traffic management and
pedestrian needs. Educational programs were nominated by only a small number of Councils.
The most common factors leading to the development of road safety programs were the level
of general community concern, number of crashes/injuries, pressure from specific road user
groups and encouragement by MA V or VicRoads. Almost half of the Councils spent $5,000
or more to reduce speeding in local streets. Few of the road safety activities were evaluated.
Several Councils had planned a variety of programs and activities for the 1998/99 financial
year. However, many small regional Councils had no road or traffic safety activities planned.
All councils collaborated with VicRoads and almost all with Police to improve road safety.
Large regional Councils were more likely to collaborate with Community Road Safety
Councils than metropolitan and small regional Councils. Some Councils who collaborated
with CRSCs focused on engineering road safety activities and relied on CRSCs to provide
educational programs for the community.
There was no formal training in road safety in most Councils. Road safety auditing and
promoting road safety in the community were the most commonly nominated training needs.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
IX
Several Councils felt it was important to have road safety training for non-engineering staff.
Councils reported that staff shortages made it difficult to train personnel in road safety.
REPEATING THE SURVEY
Conversion of some questionnaire items to multiple-choice format for the repeat survey may
improve data quality and completeness and have advantages for both respondents and data
analysis.
Comparisons between the surveys can be made for those Councils who respond to both
surveys to track changes and among the general sample of those Councils responding.
If road safety planning is of strong interest, the repeat survey should not be conducted before
2001 to allow changes in plans to occur. If road safety activities (rather than planning) are of
prime interest, then the survey may be repeated sooner.
ROAD SAFETY INITIATIVES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The following examples of road safety initiatives and activities were identified from the
follow-up of 10 selected Councils.
Improving road safety as part of other changes. This includes:
•
adapting road classifications and use within the municipality to benefit from development
of major State roads within the municipality
•
encouraging Councils in developing areas to develop the safest possible infrastructure
•
developing minor infrastructure to encourage safer road user behaviour
Working with Community Road Safety Councils. CRSCs can:
•
assist in promoting road safety and running programs where Council currently does not
have the expertise in this area
•
lobby, inform and motivate Council about road safety issues
PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES
Promotion opportunities were identified which related to road safety plans, raising the profile
of road safety and improving road safety training.
Road safety plans - The opportunity exists to develop techniques to ensure that development once
commenced, continues and that finalised plans are actually available and used.
The profile of road safety can be raised by:
•
working with Community Road Safety Councils
•
asking the community about road safety issues
•
mapping and presenting crash data to influence community and elected representatives.
X
MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Opportunities for improving training include:
•
development of road safety training for other than engineers
•
possibility of virtual road safety training modules to improve
particularly for staff in regional Councils
•
following on from existing training, in providing encouragement for road safety auditing
and implementation of results.
access to training,
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Xl
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
In 1997 a Working Party was formed to review the current status and effectiveness of road
safety actions at the municipal level across Victoria. The Working Party developed a
strategy to reduce road trauma at the local level, focussing on vulnerable road users pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and the young and elderly.
In May 1998, the Road Safety in Local Government Initiative was launched by the
Minister for Roads and Ports and the Municipal Association of Victoria. The Initiative
aims to encourage councils to identify road safety problems in their municipality and form
partnerships with other agencies and community groups to highlight road safety awareness.
A need was identified to undertake a study of the current road safety programs and
practices of councils in order to have a baseline measure to use in the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Road Safety in Local Government Initiative.
1.1.1 Earlier surveys
A questionnaire focus sing on ways of improving the delivery of road safety programs
across Victoria was sent to all municipalities in Victoria in 1997. The results are reported
by Arbuckle (1997). The primary officers targeted in this survey were in the engineering
and health areas. Fifty-six Councils responded to the questionnaire. Thirteen Councils
submitted the questionnaire from both areas of operations. The questionnaire comprised
ten items which addressed the following issues:
•
the primary person responsible for road safety in Council
•
community consultation about road safety
•
community safety promotions and why these do not occur
•
references to road safety in major strategic planning documents
•
mentions of road safety in contract specifications
•
collaboration with other road safety agencies
•
barriers to playing a greater role in road safety
•
need for training courses
Arbuckle (1997) reported consistent metropolitan-rural
involvement in road safety by metropolitan councils.
reflected real metropolitan-rural differences or rather
than rural councils. For this reason, the current study
with larger and smaller budgets.
differences, with generally greater
However, it is unclear whether this
the larger budgets of metropolitan
divided regional councils into those
The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales and the Institute of Municipal
Engineering Australia (NSW Division) commissioned a survey of local government road
safety planning and activities in 1994 (Haworth and Bowland, 1995). Its purpose was to
establish the baseline level of road safety planning and activity to assist:
•
RTA to monitor and assess the progress of the Road Safety 2000 strategy
•
IMEA Management Committee to evaluate the Local Government Road Safety Project
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1
•
RTA (Sydney Region) and the Federal Office of Road Safety in the long-term
evaluation of the Council Road Safety Officers Project.
Three methods were used:
•
a questionnaire mailed to 160 Councils
•
face-to-face interviews and collection of relevant documents for 17 mban Councils
•
telephone interviews and collection of relevant documents for 10 rural Councils (who
had also completed the mail questionnaire).
Councils were classified into four categories based on population and location to enable
useful comparisons to be made. Urban Councils were surveyed by mail or face-to-face
interview and rural Councils were surveyed by mail or telephone interview. Seventeen
Sydney Councils were involved in a pilot road safety program which funded Council Road
Safety Officers (RSOs). Data collected from these Councils (some face-to-face, some mail
questionnaire) formed a sub-group against which the other Councils were compared and
contrasted.
The extent to which road safety planning was included and prioritized within Council
Management Plans and other planning documents was assessed, with particular attention
to:
•
the existence of Management Plans
•
the inclusion and level of importance given to road safety within the Management
Plans
•
the existence of a specific Road Safety Plan
•
the existence of corporate and administrative arrangements for road safety
•
which Council division is responsible for road safety
•
actual or planned safety audits.
Road safety programs and activities which have already been developed and/or undertaken
by Councils were examined with particular attention to:
•
any road safety projects initiated/developed/implemented
proposed for the next 12 months
•
who planned and implemented such projects
•
the method for assessing the need for each project
•
any evaluations conducted
•
the intended and unintended outcomes of these projects
•
the perceived benefits of these projects
•
the success of these projects in terms of a real road safety impact
•
projects which have undemonstrated road safety impact, but which still have potential
•
road safety programs and activities planned for the next 12 months.
2
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
within the past 12 months or
1.2
AIMS
The aims of the study were to
1. set a base measure to gauge the effectiveness of the Road Safety in Local Government
Initiative,
2. highlight current road safety initiatives, and
3. identify opportunities to promote road safety initiatives
1.3
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The methods involved in the development and distribution of the questionnaire and followup are described in Chapter 2. The responses to the questionnaire are summarised in
Chapter 3, then Chapter 4 describes current road safety initiatives and opportunities to
promote road safety initiatives identified from the follow-up of selected Councils.
Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the results and make recommendations for future surveying.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
3
4
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
2.0
METHOD
The study was conducted by means of a mail questionnaire sent to all Councils in Victoria.
2.1
QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS
A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix One. It was presented as an A4
stapled booklet with a front introductory page and eight pages of questions.
The questionnaire was based on that used in a survey by the Municipal Association of
Victoria in 1997 but collected more in-depth information than the earlier questionnaire.
Some questions from the 1994 New South Wales Survey of Local Government Road
Safety Planning and Activities (Haworth and Bowland, 1995) were also included.
The questionnaire addressed issues such as:
•
current Council road safety activities (including road safety programs, events, road
safety activities in existing responsibilities e.g. road safety audits, traffic management,
health care, parking etc.)
•
level of resourcing of activities
•
existence of a road safety strategy or plan or whether there are plans to develop one
•
road safety targets set
•
training in road safety - what programs do Councils have
•
needs for road safety training
•
how to be further involved in road safety
•
links with road safety networks and stakeholders
2.2
DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaires were mailed to all 78 Councils in Victoria.
Chief Executive Officer.
They were addressed to the
The questionnaires were sent out by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MA V) to
increase local government ownership of the survey and maximise the response rate. The
covering letter and questionnaire requested that completed questionnaires be mailed to
MUARC.
Questionnaires were posted on 19 October 1998, with a requested return date of 30
November 1998. Councils were telephoned during the week commencing 23 November
1998 to ask whether they required any assistance with the questionnaire. Approximately
one-third of Councils returned the questionnaire by the due date. Commencing 7
December 1998, reminder calls were made to Councils who had not returned the
questionnaire.
2.3
FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES
After the questionnaires were returned, a telephone and mail follow-up was undertaken to
collect more detailed information from those councils who had a range of road safety
activities/programs or exhibited opportunities to promote road safety initiatives.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
5
An initial group of candidate Councils was selected by reviewing the survey responses.
Most Councils were eliminated because they reported very little road safety activity.
Those remaining were assessed on the number and breadth of road safety practices,
initiatives and plans for the future. Taken into account, but with slightly less emphasis,
was the number of road safety issues mentioned in Council documents such as the
Municipal Strategic Statement. Whether or not a Council perceived themselves as having
a good road safety record was noted. The Councils that exhibited all of the above qualities
were selected.
The list of 14 candidate councils was sent to VicRoads for their input. Six Councils were
eliminated as a result of this process, and two added, and a final list of 10 Councils was
selected for follow up. Follow-ups were conducted for seven Councils in metropolitan
Melbourne and three Councils in regional Victoria.
The follow-up commenced in early February 1999, when most staff had returned from
leave.
2.4
ANALYSIS
Resources and demands vary among Councils and this is likely to affect road safety
involvement, as well as other activities. Table 2.1 summarises the annual budgets for
1997/98 for Councils in metropolitan Melbourne and Regional Victoria. The mean budget
for metropolitan Councils is greater than the mean for Councils in Regional Victoria but
there is a large range within each group. In general, the Councils with lower budgets were
outlying metropolitan areas or rural areas (not provincial cities). For this reason it was
considered inappropriate to categorise Councils into Metropolitan and Regional groupings.
Instead, Councils were grouped into Metropolitan (31 Councils, of which only one had a
budget of less than $20 million), Large Regional (18 Councils with budget $20 million or
greater) and Small Regional (29 Councils with budget less than $20 million).
Table 2.1 Comparison of annual budgets for 1997/98 for Councils in metropolitan
Melbourne and Regional Victoria. Data supplied by the Municipal
Association of Victoria.
Budget measure
6
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
29$21.4
18
30Victoria
1million
$19.1
$65.0
$150.8
$3.1
million
$106.7
million
Metropolitan
Councils
Regional
Councils
ACCIDENT RESEARCH
CENTRE
3.0
RESULTS
3.1
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
3.1.1 Response rate
As at 28 January 1999, 63 (81%) of the 78 Councils had responded.
responded after this date but was too late for inclusion in the data analysis.
Two Councils
Six of the 31 Councils in metropolitan Melbourne did not respond, representing 23% of
these Councils. Seven of the 47 Councils from Regional Victoria did not respond,
representing 15% of these Councils. Of the metropolitan Melbourne Councils not to reply,
two were in Melbourne South, two were in Melbourne West, one was in Melbourne North
and one was in Melbourne East. Of the seven from Regional Victoria who did not reply,
two were in the Barwon Region, one was in the East Gippsland area, one was in the
Gippsland area, one was in the Goulburn area, one was in the Ovens-Murray area and one
was in the Western District.
All of the metropolitan Councils who did not respond had budgets over $20 million. Three
of these Councils had budgets below the metropolitan average and three had budgets above
the metropolitan average. The mean of the budgets of metropolitan Councils who did not
respond was very similar to those who did respond.
Two of the seven regional Councils who did not respond had budgets over $20 million.
The mean of the budgets of the regional Councils who did not respond was slightly lower
than for those who did respond.
3.1.2 Business units responding
Councils were asked to list the contact names and business units of persons who helped
complete the survey. In most instances fewer than four people helped to complete the
survey. The largest numbers of persons to help complete the survey were seven and nine.
The business units of the persons completing the survey are summarised in Table 3.1. The
primary person completing the survey was commonly from an engineering! technical
services/infrastructure business unit, with a minority of persons being from planning. The
other respondents were likely to be from planning and a variety of business units.
3.2
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ROAD SAFETY
Councils were asked to nominate the business unit or department which has the major role
for road safety. The names of the business units or departments varied somewhat and are
grouped together in Table 3.2. The most common types of business units or departments
were the groupings "engineering" and "infrastructure".
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
7
Table 3.1 Type of business unit of the primary person who completed the survey
Type of business unit
respondents
Business unit of other
2613
49316
3
2
11
51
Business
unit of primary 63
person
21
Table 3.2 Type of business unit or department which has the major responsibility
for road/traffic safety
Type of business unit or department
ervices
cture
al
Services
ns
ransportation
onse
Engineering
8
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
26
49of Councils
1
5
63
Number15
A large number of other business units or departments were identified which have some
responsibility for road/traffic safety. These organisations and their roles are summarised in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Types of business units or departments which have some responsibility for
road/traffic safety. Multiple responses allowed
Type of business unit or
department
Number of
Councils
Roles
6
Planning, funding, policy. Parking enforcement, local
laws. Customer service. All staff encouraged to
report dangerous situations. Risk management.
Staff training and claims investigation.
3
Access to properties under construction.
Implementation, enforcement. Temporary works,
hoardings.
8
Community awareness programs. Baby capsules.
Community safety audits. Elderly transport.
Disability access. Child safety education.
Administration
Building
Community Services
Engineering
60
Finance 2
I
56
29
Design, construction and standards of roads.
Provide advice. Policies for safe roads. Supervision
of work. Investigation of road safety complaints and
recommendations of possible treatments. Calming
measures. Asset management. Road maintenance.
Liaise with Road Safety Council. Traffic
management. Audits. Developing programs from
CrashStats with VicRoads. Applications for funds.
None described.
Municipal Health Plan. Environmental health. Public
education.
Risk management. Baby capsule scheme.
Community safety programs. Walk With Care, aged
and disability services. Advice to elderly drivers.
Parking. Compliance. Obstructions on and over
road - physical and visual. School crossing
supervision. Enforcement and education. Stray
animals. Temporary road closures. Regulates
Council policies. Employment of a Safe Cities
Project Officer. Identification of issues and problems.
Parks and Gardens
Maintenance of street trees and roundabouts.
6
Recreation
6
Maintaining roads and signs in a safe condition.
Visibility maintenance.
Bicycle strategy and bicycle education programs.
Member on bicycle committees. Community
Development Officer.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
9
Table 3.3 Types of business units or departments which have some responsibility for
road/traffic safety. Multiple responses allowed (cont.)
7
28
19
Road
maintenance.
Maintenance
ofof signs
and line
Response
development
to emergencies
and implementation
e.g. oif
transport
Service
Engineering
Services
for
road
safety
consideration.
Councils
Number
ofspills.
Type of business unit or
Subdivision ofdesigns.
Refer
planning
to
Compliance.
School crossing
safety. approvals
Enforcement
Monitoring
physical
and environmental
services.
8Roles
markings.
Rural
roadworks.
providers
situations
to
to
report
engineering.
incidents
dangerous
chairs
strategies.
on footpaths
A-frame
and
advertising
otherand
local
boards,
laws.
tables
Accident
and
improvements.
Traffic
studies.
Bicycle
coordination.
and
education.
Investigation
of
traffic
issues
and
blackspot
analysis.
Plans
strategic
infrastructure,
major
road
3.3
ROAD SAFETY IN COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES
Councils were asked whether any road safety programs or initiatives were mentioned in
their Corporate Plan, Municipal Strategic Statement or Municipal Health Plan. They were
also asked whether they had a Road Safety Plan and how Council identifies and prioritises
road safety issues (including setting targets).
3.3.1
Corporate Plan
Of the 63 Councils who responded, 61 reported having a Corporate Plan. One Council was
still developing its Corporate Plan and one Council did not complete this item. Most Plans
covered from 1998-2000 (10) or 1998-2001 (30) (see Table 3.4).
Overall, 33 (54%) of Councils stated that road safety programs or initiatives were
mentioned in their Corporate Plans. Councils whose Corporate Plan commenced before
1998 appeared to be somewhat less likely to mention road safety programs or initiatives in
the Plan than Councils whose Plan commenced in 1998 (25% versus 58%, see Table 3.4).
Table 3.5 shows that metropolitan Councils appear to be more likely to mention road
safety programs or initiatives in their Corporate Plan than large or small regional Councils,
but this was not statistically significant.
10
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
Table 3.4 Whether road safety programs or initiatives were mentioned in the
Corporate Plan as a function of period of the Corporate Plan
4
1 Total
1
5
12
29
1No
Period of Corporate
No 63
response
2
18
4
1 10
30
2
5
3
5
1 1 or initiatives 1 mentioned?
33
1 Road safety plans
Yes
Table 3.5 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils who
mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in their Corporate Plans
Road safety 29
programs
13
7Small
10
23
8Total
1 24
9
33
63
16
15
Large
regional
regional
Metropolitan
Yes
1
Councils were asked to describe the road safety programs and initiatives mentioned in their
Corporate Plans. There were a large number of different responses to this open-ended
question which were coded into the categories in Table 3.6 (see Appendix Two for the full,
verbatim answers to this question). The VicRoads programs mentioned included Safe
Routes to Schools and Walk With Care.
The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in Corporate Plans
were related to providing safe infrastructure, using/developing road or transport strategies,
traffic management and pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Metropolitan Councils were more
likely to mention traffic management and using/developing road and transport strategies
than were regional Councils.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
11
Examples of responses coded as "providing safe infrastructure" were:
Key Directions - Transport and Physical Infrastructure; Improve traffic safety in residential areas,
ensure safe, reliable paths, trails and public transport networks. (Metropolitan)
We will provide a high standard of design and maintenance for infrastructure which promotes safety
and enhances the visual appearance of the city. (Metropolitan)
Develop a 'Road Safety Strategy' for the community with the aim of reducing the incidence and
severity of road accidents by providing a safer road network. (Metropolitan)
To develop and implement a roads strategy that will focus Council resources into identified areas of
need and maximise the useful life of road assets. (Metropolitan)
General statement only; 'Maintain and improve required physical infrastructure to achieve consistent
technical standards'. (Metropolitan)
Specific key improvement areas - traffic management and car parking (safety being a major part of
these). (Metropolitan)
To provide safe and equitable access for all ratepayers, residents and visitors by the provision of
roads, streets and paths. (Large regional)
To plan, develop, maintain and manage the Shire's physical assets in a cost effective and financially
responsible manner, which will contribute to the amenity, safety, mobility and other needs of the
local and wider community. (Small regional)
Bitumen resealing program, rolling assets rehabilitation program, road maintenance program. (Small
regional)
Table 3.6 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils who
mentioned specific road safety programs or initiatives in their Corporate
Plans. Multiple responses allowed
2
1Total
13
8
8 Large
0
1
15
19
28
7
63
4
23
4
2
4
043
16
95
27
24
Road safety 10
programs
orregional
initiatives
Small
regional
6
24
11
8
3
2
1
45
10
Metropolitan
VicRoads blacks
programs
Accident
pots
3.3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement
Overall, 22% of Councils who responded mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in
their Municipal Strategic Statements (see Table 3.7). While metropolitan Councils
appeared to be more likely to mention road safety programs or initiatives in their
Municipal Strategic Statements than regional Councils, the difference was not statistically
significant.
12
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH
CENTRE
Table 3.7 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils who
mentioned road safety initiatives or programs in their Municipal Strategic
Statements
Road safety 14
programs
orregional
initiatives
46
4
19
13
3
63 Large
16Total
23
Small
regional
14
7
24
Metropolitan
Yes
The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in the Municipal
Strategic Statements related to providing safe infrastructure (see Table 3.8).
3.3.3
Municipal Health Plan
Overall, almost 25% of Councils who responded
initiatives were mentioned in their Municipal Health
large regional and small regional Councils did not
who mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in
stated that road safety programs or
Plans (see Table 3.9). Metropolitan,
differ significantly in the proportion
their Municipal Health Plan.
The mix of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the Municipal Health Plans
differed from those in the Corporate Plans or the Municipal Strategic Statements. The
most commonly mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in the Municipal Health
Plans related to providing safe infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist facilities and educating
the community (see Table 3.10). Small regional Councils appeared to be less likely to
mention educating the community.
Table 3.8 Types of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the Municipal
Strategic Statement. Multiple responses allowed
3
2
1
1 Total
0
19
0
12
7
0
70
24
19
45
23
2
16
63 Large
Road safety 10
programs
orregional
initiatives
Small
regional
27
5
14
1
2
4
0
24
0
Metropolitan
VicRoads blacks
programs
Accident
pots
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
13
Table 3.9 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils who
mentioned road safety initiatives or programs in their Municipal Health
Plans
Road safety 14
programs
or regional
initiatives
63
23
5
16Total
46 Large
11
3
20
Small
regional
Metropolitan
15
24
6
Table 3.10 Types of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the Municipal
Health Plan. Multiple responses allowed
0 Large
5
46
1
6
2
19
11
16Total
8
3
0
5
87
63
23
27
1
25
Road safety 4
programs
orregional
initiatives
Small
regional
16
4
3
0
24
35
2
2
Metropolitan
VicRoads
programs
Accident blackspots
3.3.4 Road Safety Plans or Strategies
Eight of the 63 Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy (13%). A Road Safety Plan
was under consideration by 14 Councils (22%) and was being developed by 3 Councils
(5%). Six of the Councils with Road Safety Plans or Strategies were Metropolitan
Councils (see Table 3.11).
Table 3.11 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils with
a Road Safety Plan or Strategy
11
19
38
23
16Total
24
8
3
8
1
4
63
3
7
6
Road Safety14
PlanLarge
Metropolitan
Small
regional
regional
14
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
3
RESEARCH CENTRE
Councils who did not have a Road Safety Plan were asked to specify the reasons for this.
The most common response was insufficient resources, which was cited by 37 Councils
(see Table 3.12). Fourteen Councils stated that they did not have a Road Safety Plan
because it was not in the Corporate Plan and nine Councils stated that road safety was
covered in another plan or strategy.
Most regional Councils said that they did not have a Road Safety Plan because of
insufficient resources. In addition, small regional Councils were somewhat more likely to
say that they did not have a Road Safety Plan because it was not in the Corporate Plan, but
less likely to say that road safety was covered in a different plan or strategy.
Table 3.12 Reasons why metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils do
not have a Road Safety Plan. Multiple responses allowed
1no Road
4
37
12
0
0Total
24
15
3977
721Small
33
2
55
22
5
Reason why14
Safety
Plan
Large
regional
regional
18
5
0
31
Metropolitan
18
5
31
Other
competing
demands
-Plan
other
No
need
for acovered
Road
Safety
Road
safety
in a different
Councils were asked how they identify and prioritise road safety issues. The responses
were grouped into the categories in Table 3.13. The most commonly reported methods of
identifying and prioritising road safety issues were: community feedback, accident records
(including CrashStats) and staff assessments.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
15
Table 3.13 How Councils identify and prioritise road safety issues. Multiple
responses allowed
Method
11
7
137
7
6
2
42
3
1
2
38
16
11
827
864Small
87Total
16
26
29
63Large
23
3
regional
regional
4
9
57
5
3
1
24
13
Metropolitan
13
6
Staff assessments
Accident
records (including
Seven Councils had set road safety targets. Four of these Councils were in metropolitan
Melbourne, two were large regional Councils and one was a small regional Council. Four
Councils with road safety targets had a Road Safety Plan and three had not. The road
safety targets were listed as:
1. respond to community concerns,
2. improve traffic flows and road safety,
3. conduct road safety audits,
4. develop a Road Safety Strategy,
5. be part of a Road Safety Council, and
6. achieve a 5% per annum reduction in casualty accidents by the year 2000.
3.3.5 Allocation of resources for road safety activities
Councils were asked to report their total annual budget for 1997/98. However, some
Councils did not complete this item and, for other Councils, the estimate was not in
agreement with information provided by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MA V).
Therefore the categorisation by total income was made based on the data supplied by the
MA V. The total annual budgets of the metropolitan Councils who completed the survey
varied from $19.1 million to $150.8 million. The total annual budgets of the regional
Councils who completed the survey varied from $6.1 million to $106.7 million. Of the
regional Councils, 16 had an annual budget of $20 million or more and 23 had an annual
budget of less than $20 million.
Councils were ask to describe and estimate the total program cost (including salaries) of a
range of activities related to road safety during the 1997/98 financial year. The
16
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
expenditure on each type of activity is summarised in Table 3.14. These numbers need to
be treated with caution because some Councils may have spent money on particular
activities but were not able to identify that cost within a broader budget. The larger
number of Councils who left blanks for the non-engineering programs may reflect this.
The general conclusion from Table 3.14 is that road construction/realignment is the largest
and most common type of road safety-related expenditure by Councils. This is followed
by local area traffic management and pedestrian needs. Generally educational programs
were nominated by only a small number of Councils (even given the lower response rate
for these items).
Table 3.14 Expenditure on various road safety-related activities during 1997-98
Number
of
61
37
44
34
29
6 who
15
46
Councils
$808
$2,135
$1,740
$3,538
$218,398
$85,032
$34,465
$1,940,808
$3,510,752
$130,052
$5,626
$919,000
$390,000
$5,840,000
$20,000,000
$30,000
$80,000
$106,000
$1,200,000
$35,000
Mean
Maximum
expenditure*
expenditure
$150,000
5
management
Bicycle(aseducation
Total
stated)
* Mean expenditure includes those Councils who said they spent no money on this area, but does
not include those Councils who left the item blank.
Other activities nominated by some Councils were: improved signage, road maintenance,
major traffic works, street lighting, bus shelters and bays, local laws and parking, bridge
construction, baby bassinet scheme, school crossing supervision and public transport
facilities.
Only 29 Councils nominated a total sum spent on the various road safety-related activities.
The amount ranged from $0.2 million to $20 million, with a mean of about $3.5 million.
For these 29 Councils, expenditure on these activities comprised from 0.75% to 35.36%
(mean 9.4%) of Councils' total budgets for the 1997/98 financial year. The percentage
values were similar for metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils (9.3%,
8.2% and 10.3%, respectively).
A substantial number of Councils had difficulty in answering the question about how many
equivalent full-time staff service road safety. Comments were made which included: "this
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
17
is impossible to answer" and "everyone involved with roads".
recorded data for this item is open to question.
Thus the validity of the
Table 3.15 shows that almost half of the Councils had between 0.1 and 2.9 equivalent fulltime staff servicing road safety. Some of the Councils who gave large estimates stated that
they had included "everyone involved with roads" or "all of the parking staff'.
Small regional Councils were more likely to have less than one full-time equivalent person
servicing road safety than were other Councils.
Table 3.15 How many equivalent full-time staff service road safety
23
11
20376116
926463
1 Large
Total
Number of equivalent
full-time
Small
regional
regional
264103
24
Metropolitan
0
3.4
ROADSAFETYACTIVITIES
3.4.1 Road safety activities during 1997/98
The total program cost for various road safety activities during the 1997/98 financial year
is summarised in Table 3.16. The road safety activity in which Councils were most likely
to have been involved was programs to reduce speeding in local streets. Almost half of the
Councils spent $5,000 or more on these programs. Most of the expenditure was on traffic
management investigations (including speed analyses) and construction of treatments to
reduce speeds in local streets.
18
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
vity $4,999
Table 3.16 Total program costs for various road safety activities during the 1997/98
financial year
3
9
2
7
0
5
103
4
5
1$1,000
27
314
2
response
6$999
more
No or$1
-54
$5,000
for
the
community
Other
Not
driving
when
Providing
road
Drink
driving
Bicycle
safety
39
35
57
52
56
42
26
None
Total program cost
, Those Councils which spent less than $5,000 on providing road safety information for the
local community mainly displayed road safety brochures and pamphlets at Council offices.
Councils who spent more than $5,000 ran pedestrian safety programs (e.g. Walk With
Care, Safe Routes To Schools), employed Child Safety or Bicycle Strategy Officers or had
staff run education programs in schools.
Bicycle safety programs ranged from Councils displaying brochures and other information
in Council offices and providing advice to schools and the community (under $5,000) to
employment of a Bicycle Strategy Officer and construction of bicycle lanes and paths
(over $5,000).
Seatbelt wearing, drink driving and fatigue programs were mainly conducted through
Councils' involvement with local Community Road Safety Councils (and State Emergency
Service for fatigue). It was notable that two Councils had programs to educate their own
staff about drugs and alcohol.
Programs to increase child restraint use were commonly baby capsule loan schemes, and
education on correct fitting and use through Maternal and Child Health, preschools and
local Community Road Safety Councils.
Councils were asked what factors led to the development of these programs. Twenty-one
Councils did not respond to this question. Another ten stated that the question was not
applicable because they had no programs in place. The most common response was level
of general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressure from
specific road user groups and encouragement by MA VNicRoads (see Table 3.17).
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
19
Table 3.17 Factors that led to the development of the road safety programs. Multiple
responses allowed
Factor
117
63
10
28
15
9of Councils
Number
16
21
14
2
ce
nity
Safety
Council
cific
road concern
user
groups
auditRoad
ommunity
crashes/injuries
MAVNicRoads
In general, few of the activities were evaluated. Of the 13 Councils who said that some of
the road safety activities were evaluated, a range of methods of evaluation was reported
(see Table 3.18).
3.4.2 Proposed programs for 1998/99
Councils were asked to list any proposed road or traffic safety programs or activities
planned for the 1998/99 financial year. The responses are summarised in Table 3.19. The
most common programs or activities listed were: improve infrastructure, pedestrian or
cyclist facilities, educational programs (including VicRoads programs) and traffic
management. Of the 23 small regional Councils, 5 stated that they had no road or traffic
safety activities proposed for the 1998/99 financial year and 10 did not respond to this
item. Metropolitan Councils were somewhat more likely to list "traffic management" and
large regional Councils were somewhat more likely to list "pedestrian or cyclist facilities"
and "improve infrastructure".
20
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Table 3.18 Ways in which the road safety activities were evaluated
Type of evaluation
Number of Councils
29
63
51
17
3
unity
ts of Council
responses
* includes one illegible
3.4.3 Partners in road safety
Councils were asked to nominate which organisations they collaborate with to improve
road safety. All Councils who responded nominated VicRoads and almost all nominated
Police (see Table 3.20). Community Road Safety Councils were nominated by almost all
large regional Councils but only by about half of metropolitan and small regional Councils.
3.4.4 Training
Councils were asked what training that staff receive in order to deliver road safety
programs. Fourteen Councils did not respond to this item (see Table 3.21). An additional
28 Councils said that there was no specific training, there was on-the-job training or that
previous qualifications were sufficient to deliver road safety programs. The most common
type of formal training was "seminarslcourses", followed by training in road safety
auditing. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likely to nominate seminars/courses
and less likely to nominate informal means of training than regional Councils.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
21
Table 3.19 Proposed road or traffic safety programs or activities for the 1998/99
financial year. Multiple responses allowed
6
4
1
5
10
5
17
63Large
23
16
3activity
15
16
109
3
2
3
29
9
35
11
18
0
Total
Type of program
or
Small
regional
regional
0
5
24
3
45
6
2
4
9
Metropolitan
1
7
Develop infrastructure
road safety strategy
Improve
Table 3.20 Organisations which Council collaborates with to improve road safety.
Multiple responses allowed
1
55
48
2
2
7
0
22
37
10
13
9
23
61Large
18
16
63
54
15Total
Organisation 170
regional
Small
regional
22
MONASH UNIVERSITY
1
67
14
21
23
3
24
5
Metropolitan
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
Table 3.21 Training that staff receive in order to deliver road safety programs.
Multiple responses allowed
79 Large
26
22
2
11
19
4
4Total
3
6
16
7
0
1
8
3
1
2
14
5
16
5
63
23
Type of training
regional
Small
regional
31
2
4
1
5
0
3
11
24
Metropolitan
When asked which training courses would assist Council in conducting road safety
programs, most Councils nominated road safety auditing, followed by promoting road
safety in the community and then accident analysis and identification (see Table 3.22).
Small regional Councils appeared less likely to nominate training courses on accident
analysis and identification than other Councils.
Table 3.22 Training that would assist Council to deliver road safety programs.
Multiple responses allowed
7 Total
11
7 Large
2
37
48
5
3
18
1
13
23
16
23
120
63
36
33
Type of training
Small
regional
regional
41
14
51
17
24
Metropolitan
15
Other
3.5
ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES
In Section 3 of the questionnaire, Councils were asked about their involvement in a range
of road safety-related activities.
3.5.1 Safety audits
Currently, less than one-quarter of Councils have a policy of conducting regular safety
audits of the existing road system (see Table 3.23). However, a large number of Councils
are considering or developing such a policy. Relatively more metropolitan Councils than
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
23
other Councils seem to have such a policy currently, but about half of the small regional
Councils are considering or developing such a policy.
Only about 20% of Councils reported that they audited all new work. Almost half of the
Councils audited none of the new work (see Table 3.24). Metropolitan Councils appeared
to be more likely to currently audit all new work.
Table 3.23 Does Council have a policy of conducting regular safety audits of the
existing road system?
863
23
16Total
15
89Small
14
1 audits
10
2
3
25
0
24
1
9
3
5
6
Regular safety
Metropolitan
Large
regional
regional
Table 3.24 What percentage of new works are currently audited?
2
12
423
5916Total
13
1
57318
6 work
2
63
0
24
Percentage 14
of28
Metropolitan
Large
Small
regional
regional
3.5.2 Enforcement
Councils were asked about the role that parking officers play in road safety. Not
surprisingly, enforcement of parking restrictions was the most commonly reported role (see
Table 3.25). However, providing feedback to Council about hazards, educating the public
and improving safety around schools were also commonly reported roles.
Parking officers appear to play a lesser role in road safety in small regional Councils:
seven small regional Councils left this item blank and eight reported that parking officers
played no role or a minimal role in road safety.
24
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
Table 3.25 The roles that parking officers play in road safety. Multiple responses
allowed
3
87
23
2
26
7
4
1
10
663
8
6
25
16
7Total
12
7
2
2 parking
0
Role played 28
by
officers
Large
Small
regional
regional
24
4
36
14
4
0
1
Metropolitan
6
4
Target
Removeareas
stray around
animalsschools
from the road
Overall, less than half of the Councils reported assisting Police with in-depth investigation
of crash sites (see Table 3.26). Large regional Councils appeared to be less involved in
this activity than other Councils. Most Councils worked with Police to target enforcement
to hazardous sites.
3.5.3
Street trees
Almost all Councils reported regularly pruning trees by footpaths, cycle tracks and
roadways to maintain clear visibility for users (Table 3.26). However, less than onequarter of the Councils had a policy for planting only frangible trees to minimise the
collision hazard for motorists.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
25
Table 3.26 Council involvement in various road safety-related activities
4
2
0
1
14
45
19
3Total
3
2
21
0
16
14
3
4
12
25
12
60
23
15
3
111
1 0
1
5
0
10
38
11
13
749
22
3
Yes
Yes
No
Road safety-related
Missing
Large
Small
regional
regional
Metropolitan
Assist Police with in-depth
3.5.4 Pedestrians
Table 3.27 summarises the numbers of Councils involved in various pedestrian safety
activities. Almost all Councils examine the safety consequences for pedestrians when
planning traffic control devices and investigate the safety of bus stopping locations for
boarding and alighting passengers. In addition, almost all Councils reported providing
accessible pedestrian refuges and painted medians where appropriate. About half of the
Councils provided accessible pedestrian refuges, painted medians and pedestrian malls
where appropriate. Only 2 Councils currently provide programs to minimise the number of
intoxicated pedestrians but these programs are being considered or being developed by
another 7 Councils.
3.5.5 Motorcyclists
Most Councils reported considering the effects on motorcyclists of proposed traffic
management devices and specify that contractors sweep up loose material left on roadways
after construction or maintenance (see Table 3.28). Relatively few Councils promote
motorcycle safety materials such as "The Right Line" and "The Right Stuff'.
3.5.6 Bicyclists
About 70% of Councils reported that they had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy (see Table 3.28).
Less than half of the small regional Councils had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy.
More than one-third of Councils did not provide information on the lengths of bicycle
paths and lanes on local roads, off-road and shared with pedestrians (see Table 3.29).
Many of the Councils noted that this information was not available. The mean lengths of
bicycle paths and lanes are summarised in Table 3.29.
26
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
ces
ning traffic control
Table 3.27 Council involvement in various pedestrian safety activities
Activity
Missing
Being
developed
Under
2
1
32
2
10
21
7
7
3
4
5 21
51
17
628
50
14
20
1
5
14
17
4
91 Yes
3
15
58
16
24
12
22
3
4 Large
9 13
2
16
No
18
28
21
consideration
3
Under
Small
61
21
Being
regional
Total
3
2
1Metropolitan
ide accessible
pedestrian
stigate
adequacy
safety
of
vide
programs
to of
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
27
Table 3.28 Council involvement in various motorcycle and bicycle safety activities
Activity
43
5
17
21
13 12
4
7
14
19
2
1
3
10
2
51
4
55
22
1 Large
12
6
3
3
19
4918
17
20
12
Small
regional
Total
2
6
1 Missing
No
Yes
Metropolitan
Table 3.29 Mean lengths of bicycle paths and lanes. Numbers of Councils who
provided data to each mean are in brackets
15.2
20.3
25.7
Metropolitan
14.4
5.5
4.9
25.6
11.0
19.1
24.7
8.3
6.8 regional
Total
(10)
(13)
(39)
(14)
Small
(38)
(16)
(9)
Type of path or
lane
Large regional
28
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
4.0
FOLLOW-UP OF COUNCILS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO
PROMOTE ROAD SAFETY
After the questionnaires were returned, a telephone and mail follow-up was undertaken to
collect more detailed information from 10 Councils who had a range of road safety
activities/programs. The methods used to select the Councils for follow-up are described
in Section 2.3.
The sections below discuss the major issues relating to road safety programs or
opportunities to promote road safety initiatives that were mentioned in the follow-up
interviews.
4.1
PLANNING FOR ROAD SAFETY
Mentions of road safety in Corporate Plans were often vague and of little use in directing
future programs. More specific statements would appear to be more useful.
There is a need to ensure that Road Safety Plans, once developed, are actually used. In
several instances, Councils with Road Safety Plans were unable to locate a copy. If
documents are not available, this suggests that they are not in use.
Additionally, problems can arise when development of a Road Safety Plan is not ongoing.
One Council noted that a draft Road Safety Plan had been considered by Councillors, but
that there was no likelihood of further aC,tionin the foreseeable future. One Council noted
that even if VicRoads provides funding for the development of Road Safety Plans, shortage
of staff time may lead to delays in this happening.
It was noted that developing a road safety strategy can and should include training staff.
4.2
IMPROVING ROAD SAFETY WHEN OTHER CHANGES OCCUR
Improving road safety as part of implementing other changes is both best practice and an
opportunity. Councils noted a number of examples of this approach. Several Councils
noted that development of major State roads had led to changes in road use within the
municipality which allowed improvements in safety to occur.
Councils in outlying metropolitan areas had a focus on transforming essentially rural
infrastructure into urban road systems. Opportunities exist to promote and encourage the
development of infrastructure with higher safety performance in these areas.
Other Councils noted that they provided infrastructure
behaviour. One example was taxi shelters near hotels.
4.3
to encourage safer road user
INTEGRATION OF ROAD SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY
The integration of road safety and community safety was mentioned by some larger
Councils. For some Councils, it was seen to be working well. Another Council felt that
road safety was only of indirect interest to the focus on community safety and that road
safety was largely the responsibility of the engineers.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
29
4.4
WORKING WITH COMMUNITY ROAD SAFETY COUNCILS
The Councils that were followed-up were more likely than those who were not followedup to have stated that they collaborated with their local Community Road Safety Council
(CRSC) to improve road safety. Overall, 8 out of the 10 Councils who were followed-up
stated that they worked with their local CRSC, compared with 29 out of the 53 Councils
that were not followed-up. The group followed up comprised 7 metropolitan and 3 large
regional Councils. Among these, the proportions who worked with CRSCs were similar to
Councils of the same size who were not followed-up. There were no small regional
Councils in the follow-up group. Small regional Councils were less likely than other
Councils in the entire sample to have worked with CRSCs.
Most Councils that were followed-up commented on the role played by Community Road
Safety Councils (CRSCs). One negative comment was that Councils sometimes feel that
the CRSC "owns" road safety, rather than Council owning it. This can then be used as a
reason for inaction by Council.
Comments about the role of CRSCs were positive from those Councils who collaborated
with them. Many of these Councils felt that CRSCs provided a valuable way to
communicate road safety messages to the public. For some Councils, this meant Council
concentrated on the engineering aspects of road safety, leaving promotion and education to
the CRSC. These Councils saw this as a useful partnership.
CRSCs were seen as a source of resource material by Councils and often mounted road
safety displays in Council premises.
Information flow in the reverse direction was also commonly indicated. One Council
pointed out that the CRSC provided an organised representation to Council about issues,
compared with ad hoc complaints and concerns from the public. CRSCs were also seen as
having a proactive role, pressuring Council to install preventive measures.
The role of CRSCs in informing and motivating Councillors about road safety was seen as
valuable by Councils that worked with CRSCs.
One Council felt that the CRSC increased cooperation among local agencies with an
interest in and responsibility for road safety.
The greater independence of the CRSC than Council itself was noted as an advantage.
While Council was to some extent constrained in its actions by considerations of legal
liability and public relations, the CRSC had more freedom to raise and pursue issues.
4.5
RAISING THE PROFILE OF ROAD SAFETY
Most Councils felt that road safety concerns would be brought to them by the members of
the community, local organisations or CRSCs. One Council, however, took a pro active
approach and put a press release in the local paper asking residents to contact Council if
they had any safety concerns. This had a large response. In addition Council held ward
meetings and invited residents to come and voice any concerns they had regarding road
safety. There was also a follow-up survey and investigation and Council feedback to
residents.
Not only does such a process provide Council with information about
community road safety concerns, it also demonstrates to the community that road safety is
a priority issue.
30
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
Analysis and presentation of local road crash data can help to raise the profile of road
safety among the local community and among elected representatives. Mapped crash data
appear to be very powerful in this respect.
One Council noted that completing the questionnaire itself had raised the profile of road
safety.
4.6
EFFECTS OF AMALGAMATION AND OUTSOURCING
Some Councils noted that amalgamation and subsequent outsourcing have had negative
consequences on involvement in road safety. One Council noted that time pressures on
staff appear to have increased since amalgamation and that staff do not seem to have the
time to attend training courses. Perhaps there is potential for virtual road safety training
modules which can be accessed via the Internet. Such training could incorporate examples
of best practice from other Councils. This would also facilitate access to information by
Councils in regional Victoria for whom the costs of attending training are often higher.
Another Council noted that some staff members with road safety expertise have left to
work for other organisations outside the municpality.
4.7
ROAD SAFETY BEYOND ENGINEERING
Several Councils noted that road safety training appeared to be directed towards engineers,
rather than other members of Council staff. The desire was expressed for the development
and promotion of road safety training for non-engineering staff.
4.8
FROM TRAINING TO PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
It was noted that many engineers had been trained in road safety auditing but that now
there existed a need to encourage and support implementation.
This was in terms of
undertaking audits and implementing the results. The shortage of funds for remedial work
was considered a major factor in limiting implementation.
4.9
SUMMARY
The following examples of current good practice and opportunities to promote road safety
initiatives were identified from the follow-up of selected Councils.
Road safety plans - The opportunity exists to develop mechanisms to ensure that
•
development once commenced, continues
•
finalised plans are actually available and used
Road saf~ty can be improved as part of other changes. This includes:
•
adapting road classifications and use within the municipality
development of major State roads within the municipality
•
encouraging Councils in developing areas to develop the safest possible infrastructure
•
developing minor infrastructure to encourage safer road user behaviour
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
to benefit from
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
31
Working with Community Road Safety Councils was evident in the better-performing
Councils. CRSCs can:
•
assist in promoting road safety and running programs if Council does not have the
expertise in this area
•
lobby, inform and motivate Council about road safety issues
The profile of road safety can be raised:
•
CRSCs often perform this role
•
asking the community about road safety issues can help
•
mapping crash data can influence community and elected representatives
Training needs were identified, including:
•
development of road safety training for staff other than engineering staff
•
possibility of virtual road safety training modules
•
encouragement for road safety auditing and implementation of results
32
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH
CENTRE
5.0
DISCUSSION
This section discusses the results of the survey in terms of the response rate, comparisons
of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils and the baseline measures of
road safety in Council plans and strategies as well as road safety activities. On the basis of
the results of the survey, recommendations are made for repeating the survey.
5.1
RESPONSE RATE
There are two aspects of response rate which are relevant to the interpretation of the results
of the survey: failure to return the questionnaire and nonresponse to particular items of the
questionnaire.
5.1.1 Failure to return the questionnaire
Overall, 63 (81 %) of the 78 Councils returned the questionnaire by the date for inclusion in
the data analysis. This compares positively with the response rate of 72% in the earlier
Victorian local government road safety survey (Arbuckle, 1997) and the 71 % of mail
questionnaires returned in the NSW survey (Haworth and Bowland, 1994).
Return rates were similar for Councils in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria
and there was no evidence of geographical clustering. The mean of the budgets of
metropolitan Councils who did not respond was very similar to those who did respond.
The mean of the budgets of the regional Councils who did not respond was slightly lower
than for those who did respond.
While it might be assumed that Councils who did not respond were less interested in road
safety, the timing of the questionnaire may have meant that appropriate staff were on leave
and this prevented completion of the questionnaire.
Overall, it appears that the Councils who returned the questionnaire
representative of all Councils in Victoria.
were generally
5.1.2 Nonresponse to particular questionnaire items
There were several Councils who failed to complete a large number of items. In general,
these questionnaires were completed by a single respondent who may not have been aware
of broader Council activities or may have completed the questionnaire under time pressure.
Reading the questionnaires gives the impression that respondents may not be including all
that Councils are doing, possibly because of failures of internal communications. On the
other hand, the follow-ups found that some activities that were reported in the
questionnaire were unknown to the staff contacted.
In general, Councils experienced difficulty in completing the
allocation, including overall budgets, budgets for programs and
were some questions that were not answered because they
example, questions about the content of a program which had
that Council.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
items related to resource
staffing allocations. There
were not applicable, for
not been implemented by
BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
33
5.2
COMPARISONS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND
SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS
In general, the responses of metropolitan and large regional Councils were similar.
The responses of small regional Councils generally differed from those of large regional
Councils (and metropolitan Councils). Thus it appears that the extent of resources is the
major contributor to differences in road safety involvement, rather than metropolitanregional differences (as was claimed by Arbuckle, 1997).
There were some differences between metropolitan and regional Councils, however.
Metropolitan Councils had a larger focus on traffic management and road and transport
strategies than regional Councils. Staff training was more likely to involve attendance at
seminars and courses for metropolitan Councils than for regional Councils.
5.3
BASELINE MEASURES
5.3.1 Roles and responsibilities for road safety
The most common types of business units or departments nominated as the business unit or
department which has the major role for road safety were the groupings "engineering" and
"infrastructure". Some larger Councils nominated the "traffic/transportation" section.
5.3.2 Road safety in Council plans and strategies
Road safety was mentioned in just over half of the Corporate Plans and about one-quarter
of the Municipal Strategic Statements and Municipal Health Plans. The likelihood that
these documents mentioned road safety did not differ significantly between metropolitan,
large regional and small regional Councils. This differs from the 1997 Survey (Arbuckle,
1997), which found that more metropolitan than rural respondents (90% of metropolitan
and 60% of rural) indicated that their Council's major strategic planning documents
included reference to road safety.
Corporate Plans which were developed more recently were more likely to mention road
safety. This suggests an increasing awareness of road safety in local government.
The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in Council plans were
related to providing safe infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, using/developing
road or transport strategies (metropolitan Councils) and traffic management (metropolitan
Councils). Educating the community was more commonly included in Municipal Health
Plans than in Corporate Plans or Municipal Strategic Statements.
Road Safety Plans or Strategies
Eight Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy (13%). A Road Safety Plan was under
consideration or being developed by a further 17 Councils. Six of the Councils with Road
Safety Plans or Strategies were Metropolitan Councils.
The most common reason that Councils did not have a Road Safety Plan was insufficient
resources, which was cited by 37 Councils. Fourteen Councils stated that they did not
have a Road Safety Plan because it was not in the Corporate Plan and nine Councils stated
that road safety was covered in another plan or strategy.
34
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
The most commonly reported methods of identifying and prioritising road safety issues
were: community feedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments.
Seven Councils had set road safety targets. Four of these Councils were in metropolitan
Melbourne, two were large regional Councils and one was a small regional Council. Four
Councils with road safety targets had a Road Safety Plan and three had not.
5.3.3
Resourcing road safety
In general, Councils experienced difficulty in completing the items related to resource
allocation.
The estimated expenditures on each type of road safety activity need to be treated with
caution because some Councils may have spent money on particular activities but were not
able to identify that cost within a broader budget. The large number of Councils who left
blanks for the non-engineering programs may reflect this.
The survey did not collect information on the source of funding for road safety activities.
Thus, the mixture of Council, State and Federal funding for road safety in each Council is
not known.
Road construction/realignment was the largest and most common type of road safetyrelated expenditure by Councils. This was followed by local area traffic management and
pedestrian needs. Generally educational programs were nominated by only a small number
of Councils (even given the lower response rate for these items).
Only 29 Councils nominated a total sum spent on the various road safety-related activities.
The amount ranged from $0.2 million to $20 million, with a mean of about $3.5 million.
Expenditure on these activities comprised from 0.75% to 35.36% (mean 9.4%) of these
Councils' total budgets for the 1997/98 financial year. The percentage values were similar
for metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils.
A substantial number of Councils had difficulty in answering the question about how many
equivalent full-time staff service road safety. Comments were made which included: "this
is impossible to answer" and "everyone involved with roads". Thus the validity of the
recorded data for this item is open to question. Almost half of the Councils had between
0.1 and 2.9 equivalent full-time staff servicing road safety. Small regional Councils were
more likely to have less than one full-time equivalent person servicing road safety than
were other Councils.
5.3.4
Road safety activities
Road safety activities during 1997/98
Almost half of the Councils spent $5,000 or more on programs to reduce speeding in local
streets. Most of the expenditure was on traffic management investigations (including
speed analyses) and construction of treatments to reduce speeds.
The most common factors leading to the development of road safety programs were level
of general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressure from
specific road user groups and encouragement by MA VNicRoads.
In general, few of the road safety activities were evaluated. A wide range of methods was
reported by the 13 Councils who said that some of their road safety activities were
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
35
evaluated, including "usual methods used by Community Road Safety Councils" and
public feedback.
Proposed programs for 1998/99
The most common programs or activities planned for the 1998/99 financial year were:
improve infrastructure, pedestrian or cyclist facilities, educational programs (including
VicRoads programs) and traffic management. Many small regional Councils stated that
they had no road or traffic safety activities proposed for the 1998/99 financial year or did
not respond to this item. Metropolitan Councils were somewhat more likely to list "traffic
management" and large regional Councils were somewhat more likely to list "pedestrian or
cyclist facilities" and "improve infrastructure".
Partners in road safety
Councils were asked to nominate which organisations they collaborate with to improve
road safety. All Councils who responded nominated VicRoads and almost all nominated
Police. Large regional Councils were more likely to collaborate with Community Road
Safety Councils than metropolitan and small regional Councils.
5.3.5 Training
Only about one-third of Councils stated that staff receive formal training to deliver road
safety programs. Almost half of the Councils said that there was no specific training, there
was on-the-job training or that previous qualifications were sufficient to deliver road safety
programs. The most common type of formal training was "seminars/courses", followed by
training in road safety auditing. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likely to
nominate seminars/courses and less likely to nominate informal means of training than
regional Councils.
When asked which training courses would assist Council in conducting road safety
programs, most Councils nominated road safety auditing, followed by promoting road
safety in the community and then accident analysis and identification. Small regional
Councils appeared less likely to nominate training courses on accident analysis and
identification than other Councils.
One possible way of providing training on promoting road safety in the community would
be to encourage local government staff to attend the annual Community Road Safety
Council Conference. This Conference could be tailored slightly to be more relevant for
local government staff and would also enable relationships to be strengthened between
VicRoads Road Safety Officers, Community Road Safety Councils and local government
staff.
5.3.6 Road safety-relatedactivities
Safety audits
Currently, less than one-quarter of Councils have a policy of conducting regular safety
audits of the existing road system. Relatively more metropolitan Councils than other
Councils have such a policy currently, but about half of the small regional Councils are
considering or developing such a policy.
36
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Only about 20% of Councils reported that they audited all new work. Almost half of the
Councils audited none of the new work. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likely
to currently audit all new work.
Enforcement
Councils were asked about the role that parking officers play in road safety. Not
surprisingly, enforcement of parking restrictions was the most commonly reported role.
However, providing feedback to Council about hazards, educating the public and
improving safety around schools were also commonly reported roles. Given this, perhaps
there is potential for road safety training for parking officers.
Street trees
Almost all Councils reported regularly pruning trees by footpaths, cycle tracks and
roadways to maintain clear visibility for users. However, less than one-quarter of the
Councils had a policy for planting only frangible trees to minimise the collision hazard for
motorists.
Pedestrians
Almost all Councils examine the safety consequences for pedestrians when planning traffic
control devices and investigate the safety of bus stopping locations for boarding and
alighting passengers.
In addition, almost all Councils reported providing accessible
pedestrian refuges and painted medians where appropriate. About half of the Councils
provided accessible pedestrian refuges, painted medians and pedestrian malls where
appropriate. While only two Councils currently provide programs to minimise the number
of intoxicated pedestrians, these programs are being considered or being developed by
another seven Councils.
Motorcyclists
Most Councils reported considering the effects on motorcyclists of proposed traffic
management devices and specify that contractors sweep up loose material left on roadways
after construction or maintenance. Relatively few Councils promote motorcycle safety
materials.
Bicyclists
About 70% of Councils reported that they had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy. Less than half of
the small regional Councils had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy.
More than one-third of Councils did not provide information on the lengths of bicycle
paths and lanes on local roads, off-road and shared with pedestrians. Many of the Councils
noted that this information was not available in this classification.
5.4
RECOMMENDATIONS/ISSUESFOR REPEATING THE SURVEY
This survey was conducted to gather baseline data to be used in the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Local Government Road Safety Initiative. The issues to be considered
in repeating the survey include:
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
37
•
whether to change any questionnaire items
•
group or individual comparisons
•
when to conduct the repeat survey
5.4.1
Changing questionnaire items
In changing questionnaire items, there is a conflict between improving
maintaining comparability between the two surveys.
quality and
Many Councils experienced difficulty in estimating the resources allocated to road safety
and the usefulness of the dollar estimates provided in this study is questionable. The
multiple choice format for expenditure on particular activities appeared to be easier (there
were fewer missing values) and may have yielded data as accurate as the point estimates.
Conversion of some expenditure items to multiple-choice may be helpful for the repeat
survey. In addition, it is recommended that the item about overall annual budget be
deleted since accurate information is available from the MA V.
Many questions in the baseline survey were open-ended and the responses were
categorised and coded for presentation of the results. The option exists to present these
questions as multiple-choice items in the repeat survey, utilising the categories derived
from the baseline survey. This would reduce the resources needed for data entry and
processing and would probably result in a questionnaire that was easier for Council staff to
complete.
5.4.2 Method of comparison between surveys
Not all Councils responded to the baseline survey and not all (and not the same) Councils
are likely to respond to the repeat survey. This raises a question relating to the method of
comparing the two surveys. The main options are:
•
to analyse only the responses of those Councils who responded to both surveys (which
allows tracking of changes in individual Councils but only for those Councils who
responded both times), or
•
to analyse all responses from each survey and make general conclusions about what is
happening on an overall level.
A combination of the two approaches might be the most useful.
5.4.3 Timing of repeat survey
The questionnaire for the baseline survey was posted in October 1998 and replies were
received until 28 January 1999. Unavailability of some staff over summer holidays may
have contributed to delays in receiving the replies but it is unlikely that the response rate
would have been higher if the questionnaire had been conducted at a different time of the
year.
The elapsed time to repeating the survey may be more important than the time of year.
Most Corporate Plans covered from 1998-2000 or 1998-2001. If the survey were repeated
before 2001, then most Corporate Plans would not have changed. The lead time for
development o'f Road Safety Plans or Strategies is also likely to be considerable. Thus, if
road safety planning is of strong interest, the repeat survey should be conducted in time to
38
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH
CENTRE
allow changes in plans to occur, perhaps in 2001. Road safety activities may change more
quickly, however. If road safety activities are of prime interest, then the survey may be
repeated sooner.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
39
40
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
6.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The aims of the study were to set a baseline measure to gauge the effectiveness of the Road
Safety in Local Government Initiative, highlight current road safety initiatives and identify
opportunities to promote road safety initiatives.
This section summarises the general findings of the baseline survey and presents some
recommendations for repeating the survey. Current road safety initiatives and promotion
opportunities are then outlined.
6.1
BASELINE SURVEY
The baseline survey reported here had a good response rate and provided general and
detailed information about road safety programs undertaken by local government.
Size of the Council was a major determinant of its involvement in road safety (rather than
metropolitan or regional location). However, among Councils of the same size, some were
much more involved in road safety than others.
The business units most commonly nominated as having the major role in road safety were
the 'engineering' and 'infrastructure' business units.
Road safety was mentioned in strategic planning documents of about half of the Councils
who responded. Provision of safe infrastructure was the major focus of road safety in
planning and in expenditure terms. Interestingly, recent plans and strategies were more
likely to mention road safety, indicating a growing awareness of this issue.
Very few Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy. The most commonly reported
methods of identifying and prioritising road safety issues for a Road Safety Plan were
community feedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments.
Insufficient resources was most commonly cited as the reason for not having a Road Safety
Plan. There were a small number of Councils without a Road Safety Strategy who were
keen to develop one. However, there were also a number of Councils who could not locate
the ones they had.
Very few Councils had set road safety targets.
Many Councils experienced difficulty in completing the items related to resource
allocation.
For
those
Councils
who
did
complete
these
items,
road
construction/realignment was the largest and most common type of road safety-related
expenditure. Other large expenditures mentioned were local area traffic management and
pedestrian needs. Educational programs were nominated by only a small proportion of
Councils.
A substantial number of Councils had difficulty in answering the question about how many
equivalent full-time staff service road safety, making the validity ofthis item questionable.
The most common factors leading to the development of road safety programs were the
level of general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressure
from specific road user groups and encouragement by MA V or VicRoads. Almost half of
the Councils spent $5,000 or more on programs to reduce speeding in local streets. Few of
the road safety activities were evaluated. Several Councils had planned a variety of
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
41
programs and activities for the 1998/99 financial year. However, many small regional
Councils stated that they had no road or traffic safety activities planned at all.
All councils collaborated with VicRoads and almost all with Police to improve road safety.
Large regional Councils were more likely to collaborate with Community Road Safety
Councils than metropolitan and small regional Councils. Some Councils who collaborated
with CRSCs focused on engineering road safety activities and relied on CRSCs to provide
educational programs for the community.
Formal training in the area of road safety was lacking in most Councils. Councils
nominated training ideas for staff that would be useful in assisting them to conduct road
safety programs in their municipality. Road safety auditing and promoting road safety in
the community were the most commonly nominated training ideas. Several Councils felt it
was important to have road safety training for staff in addition to engineering staff.
Councils reported that staff shortages made it difficult to train personnel in road safety.
Very few Councils conducted regular safety audits of the existing road system or new
works.
The contribution of parking officers to road safety was identified as much greater than
simply enforcing parking rules.
Most Councils were aware of issues relating to trees, pedestrians, motorcyclists and
bicyclists, although there appeared to be a shortage of promotion of these issues in the
community.
6.2
REPEATING THE SURVEY
This survey was conducted to gather baseline data to be used in the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Local Government Road Safety Initiative.
Conversion of some questionnaire items to multiple-choice format for the repeat survey
may improve data quality and completeness and have advantages for respondents and for
data analysis.
Comparisons between the surveys can be made for those Councils who respond to both
surveys to track changes and among the general sample of those Councils responding.
If road safety planning is of strong interest, time should be allowed for changes in plans to
occur. It may be appropriate to conduct the repeat survey in 2001 for this reason. Road
safety activities may change more quickly, however. If road safety activities are of prime
interest, then the survey may be repeated sooner.
6.3
ROAD SAFETY INITIATIVES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The following examples of good practice were identified from the follow-up of selected
Councils.
Improving road safety as part of other changes. This includes:
•
42
adapting road classifications and use within the municipality
development of major State roads within the municipality
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
to benefit
from
•
encouraging Councils in developing areas to develop the safest possible infrastructure
•
developing minor infrastructure to encourage safer road user behaviour
Working with Community Road Safety Councils was evident in the better performing
Councils. CRSCs can:
•
assist in promoting road safety and running programs where Council does not currently
have the expertise in this area
•
lobby, inform and motivate Council about road safety issues
6.4
PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES
Promotion opportunities were identified which related to road safety plans, raising the
profile of road safety and improving road safety training.
Road safety plans - The opportunity exists to develop techniques to ensure that
development once commenced, continues and that finalised plans are actually available
and used.
The profile of road safety can be raised by:
•
working with Community Road Safety Councils
•
asking the community about road safety issues
•
mapping and presenting crash data to influence community and elected representatives.
Opportunities for improving training include:
•
development of road safety training for other than engineering staff
•
possibility of virtual road safety training modules to improve access to training,
particularly for staff in regional Councils
•
following on from existing training, in providing encouragement
auditing and implementation of results.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN
for road safety
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43
44
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was undertaken as part of the Baseline Research Program of the Monash
University Accident Research Centre. The baseline sponsors comprise VicRoads, the
Transport Accident Commission, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and the Department
of Justice.
The authors wish to thank the members of the Project Advisory Committee for their
support and advice: Mr John Bennett of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Ms
Patricia Liew of VicRoads, Ms Samantha Cockfield of the Transport Accident
Commission, Mr Peter Doupe of the RACV, Mr Peter Eynaud of the Department of
Justice, and Inspector Peter Keough of the Victoria Police.
We would like to express our thanks to the staff of the Municipal Association of Victoria
for providing contact details for Councils and writing a covering letter for the
questionnaire.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the local government officers who
completed the questionnaire.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
45
46
MONASH UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, S. (1997). Final report on Road Safety at Local Level. Report prepared by CNG
Data Services for VicRoads Road Safety Division.
Haworth, N. and Bowland, L. (1995). Survey of New South Wales Local Government Road
Safety Planning and Activities. (RN/3/95). Sydney: Road Safety and Traffic
Management Directorate, Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW.
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
47
48
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
APPENDIX ONE
QUESTIONNAIRE
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
49
50
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
,
~
~
•
SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD SAFETY
PLANNING AND ACTIVITIES
This questionnaire has been designed to survey current road safety planning and
activity at local government level, and has been sent to all Councils. The Municipal
Association of Victoria (MA V) in conjunction with The Monash University Accident
Research Centre is undertaking this study as part of the Road Safety in Local
Government Initiative.
The information collected will be compared with a future survey to assess the
success of the Initiative. Completing this survey may also assist your Council in
assessing its current level of activity in road safety.
We would appreciate Council's participation in completing this survey. We have'
designed the survey so that, in most cases, all that is required is to tick the
appropriate responses. If you feel that the options do not allow you to provide an
adequate answer, please make a note on the side of the form or on the final page.
Overall feedback will be provided to Councils who have completed the survey.
PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY EITHER BY MAIL TO:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD SAFETY PROJECT
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
MONASH UNIVERSITY
CLAYTON
VIC
3168
OR FAX TO 03 9905 4363
BY 30th OCTOBER 1998
If you have any queries about the survey,please feel free to contact either:
Narelle Haworth
PH:
FAX:
(03) 9905 4370
(03) 99054363
Naomi Kowadlo
PH:
FAX:
(03) 9905 4367
(03) 99054363
1.
Name of your Council:
2.
Which business unit/department of Council has the major responsibility for road/traffic
safety?
3.
.
We would appreciate having a list of contact names of those persons who helped
complete the survey in case we have any queries. Please record your name and
business unit below (please print):
Primary person completing survey
4.
(Name and phone number)
(Business Unit)
Other participants in survey
(Name and phone number)
(Business Unit)
Please tick which business units of Council, or external providers, have responsibility
for road safety and briefly describe their roles (Please feel free to change the names of
the business units to suit those of your Council):
Role
- Administration
D
.
- Building
D
D
.
.
- Human Services
D
D
D
D
.
.
.
.
- Local Laws
D
.
- Parks and Gardens
- Traffic/Parking
D
D
D
D
.
.
.
.
- Other (specify):
D
.
- Community Services
- Engineering
- Finance
- Health
- Recreation
- Town Planning
SECTION 1: COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES
Corporate Plan
1.1
What period does your Corporate Plan cover? (eg. 1998-2000)
1.2
Are any of the following terms, or similar terms, used in the Corporate Plan?
(Please tick items which apply)
- road safety
- traffic management
-
1.3
traffic safety
safety auditing
injury prevention
other (specify)
o
o
o
o
o
In regard to which business units of Council are these terms mentioned?
Term
Business Units of Council
- road safety
- traffic management
- traffic safety
- safety auditing
- injury prevention
- other
Municipal Strategic Statement
1.4
Were any of the following terms, or similar terms, mentioned in Council's current
Municipal Strategic Statement? (Please tick items which apply)
- road safety
- traffic management
-
traffic safety
safety auditing
injury prevention
other (specify)
o
o
o
o
o
Municipal Health Plan
1.5
Were any of the following terms, or similar terms, mentioned in Council's current
Municipal Health Plan? (Please tick items which apply)
- road safety
- traffic management
-
traffic safety
safety auditing
injury prevention
other (specify)
o
o
o
o
o
Road Safety Plan/Strategy
1.6
Does Council have a Road Safety Plan?
Yes
No
Under consideration
Being developed
1.7
0
0
0
0
Continue with Q1.7
Go to Q 1.10
Continue with Q1.7
Continue with Q1.7
Who was/will be involved in the development of the Plan?
-
Engineering Department
Planning Department
external consultant
VicRoads
0
0
- Corporate Services
- Community Services
- elected representatives
0
0
o
o
o
- other (specify)
1.8
Who was/will be consulted in the development stage?
o
o
o
o
o
o
- VicRoads
- schools
- police
- service clubs
- hospitals
- RAC V
- community groups
- business
- emergency services
- members of the community
-Community Road Safety Council
0
0
0
0
0
- other (specify)
1.9
Was or will the community be consulted or involved in the development of the Plan in
any of the following ways? (Please tick items which apply)
-
1.10
public meetings
workshops
draft reports for comment
other (specify)
If Council does
0
0
0
,
.
not have a Road Safety Plan, can you specify the reasons for this?
- road safety is not a priority
- hadn't thought of it
- insufficient resources
- not in Corporate Plan
0
0
0
0
- other competing demands (specify)
.
- other reason (specify)
.
1.11
Has council set any road safety targets?
1.12
If so, please describe them.
Yes
D
NoD
Allocation of Resources
1.13
What was Council's total budget for the 1997/98 financial year?
$
1.14
.
Please indicate how much money was spent on the following areas during the 97/98
financial year. If no money was spent, then please complete 'nil'.
- local area traffic management
- road construction/realignment
- road safety auditing
- removal of roadside hazards
- programs to identify high accident risk groups
- bicycle education
- bicycle facilities
- pedestrian needs
- pedestrian awareness programs
- programs for elderly pedestrians
- other (specify):
TOTAL
1.15
How many equivalent full-time staff service road safety in your council?
SECTION 2: ROAD SAFETY ACTIVITIES
2.1
In which of the following road safety activities was your Council involved in 1997/98?
(Please tick items which apply):
- seatbelt wearing
- child restraint use in vehicles
-
use of baby capsules
drink driving
speeding in local streets
providing road safety information for persons with a non-English
speaking background
- providing road safety information for community groups
- the wearing of helmets for cyclists of all ages
- not driving when fatigued
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
2.2
What led to the development of these programs?
- numbers of crashes/injuries
-
level of general community concern
pressure from specific road user groups
outcome of safety audit
encouragement by MAVNicRoads
other (specify)
(Please tick items which apply)
0
0
0
0
0
.
Yes
0
NoD
2.3
Were any of the activities evaluated?
2.4
If yes, how were they evaluated?
2.5
List any proposed road or traffic safety programs or activities for the 1998/99 financial
year.
2.6
2.7
Is Council represented on the local Community Road Safety Council?
Yes
No
0
0
Do other road safety agencies (such as VicRoads, TAC, Police) regularly collaborate
with your council to promote road safety in your municipality?
Yes
No
0
0
2.8
2.9
What training do personnel receive in order to deliver road safety programs?
Indicate what training courses would assist your council in conducting road safety
programs.
Education and community relations
2.10
Does Council have a formal program to
liaise with schools about safety issues?
2.11
If yes, does this structure include:
Yes D - Continue with Q2.11
No D - Go to Q2.12
YesD D
Yes
NoD
- encouraging
schools to adopt road safety curricula?
rights
andschool
responsibilities
as road
users?
and
from
(in conjunction
with
schools)?
yea?
to
nroutes
their legal
Yes D
No D
- Continue with Q2.13
- Go to Q3.1
2.12
Does Council keep the local community
informed on road safety issues?
2.13
If yes, what method is used to disseminate this information?
(Please tick items which apply)
- enclosures with rate notices
D
- articles/advertisements in local paper(s)
- features in Council's own newsletter
D
D
- flyers/brochures available in public places
- flyers or other printed information specifically
for persons with a non-English speaking background
D
D
- other (specify)
.
SECTION 3: ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Road crash data
3.1
Do you have access to the VieRoads CRASHSTATS CD-ROM?
3.2
How often have you used it in the last 12 months?
- never
D
- rarely (1-6 times)
- sometimes (6-12 times)
- often (more than 12 times)
Yes
D NoD
D
D
D
3.3
What do you use the CRASHSTATS data for?
- identify crash locations
D
- identify high-risk groups
D
- identify countermeasures
D
3.4
Would you please provide us with the contact names and telephone numbers of the
people who use CRASHSTATS most in your Council.
3.5
What other road safety data do you use to identify road safety issues?
Safety audits
3.6
Yes D
NoD
Does Council have a policy of conducting regular safety
Under consideration D
checks of the existing road system (safety audits)?
Being developed
D
3.7
Is it Council policy to conduct safety audits of all new
road and traffic management schemes?
Yes D
NoD
Under consideration D
Being developed
3.8
D
YesD
NoD
Do Council staff assist Police with in-depth investigations of
serious crash sites?
Yes D
No D
Does Council work with Police to target enforcement to
problem areas?
Yes D
NoD
Yes D
No D
- have a policy of planting only frangible trees in areas where
they may present a collision hazard for motorists?
Yes D
No D
Are safety audits carried out on car parking facilities?
Working with Police
3.9
3.10
Street trees
3.11
Does Council:
- regularly prune trees by footpaths/cycle tracks/ roadways,
etc. to maintain clear visibility for users?
Pedestrians
3.12
Does Council:
- consider the consequences for pedestrians
when planning traffic control devices?
Yes D
NoD
Under consideration D
Being developed
- provide accessible pedestrian refuges and
painted medians where appropriate?
Yes D
NoD
Under consideration D
Being developed
- provide pedestrian malls where appropriate?
D
D
Yes D
NoD
Under consideration D
Being developed
D
Yes D
NoD
- investigate the adequacy of walk phases at signalised
Under
consideration
D
intersections used by the elderly and those with
children?
Being developed
D
DAre
Yes
Deffects
Yes
Dthe
Under
Yes
YesD
consideration
D
Yes
N
oDoes
NoD
have
a specify
Bicycle
Plan
or
Strategy?
consider
the
potential
onmust
motorcyclists
there
bicycle
paths:
on bus
road?
Do
Council
contracts
promote
motorcycle
that
contractors
safety
materials
as DD
Council
provide
facilities
for
crossing
major
roads
- investigate
safety
of
stopping
locations
forsuch
or
maintenance?
sweep
loose
material
left
on
roadways
after
construction
whenever
installation
of
traffic
management
devices
are
proposed?
intoxicated
pedestrians?
near
bicycle
paths?
"The
Right
Line"
and
"The
Right
Stuff"
?
Being developed
3.13
3.16
3.19
Is Council involved in safe cycling promotions (e.g. Bike Ed,
Cycle On)?
Yes D
-000-
Thank you for your assistance - you have now completed the survey.
Please return the completed survey form to:
Local Government Road Safety Project
Accident Research Centre
Monash University
CLAYTON
VIC
3168
By 30th OCTOBER 1998
and please enclose a copy of your ROAD SAFETY PLAN (if you have one).
No D
60
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
APPENDIX TWO
DESCRIPTIONS OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
OR INITIATIVES MENTIONED IN CORPORATE PLANS
Road safety programs or initiatives reported by individual Councils as being described in
the Corporate plan are listed below. The programs or initiatives have been categorised into
the following groups: accident blackspots, educating the community, providing safe
infrastructure, traffic management, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, using or developing a
road or transport strategy, VicRoads programs, or not specific.
Accident blacks pots
Accident Blackspot analysis (as part of a 'Complete Integrated Transportations Strategy'.
(Metropolitan)
Pursue and encourage blackspot road funding applications. (Large regional)
Educate the community
To develop the community's participation in improving the quality of life by pursuing
initiatives to create opportunities for community leadership, partnerships and volunteer
contributions in the Municipality, and working with the Quality community Plan
Taskgroup to build community awareness of and involvement in the implementation of the
Quality Community Plan (QCP). (Metropolitan)
Community forum on road safety. (Metropolitan)
Develop and promote road safety to the community. (Metropolitan)
Implementation of Primary School 'Safe Route to School' program. (Large regional)
Provide safe infrastructure
To enhance the transport systems serving the municipality by improving major road access
within the Municipality and to the rest of Metropolitan Melbourne, providing safe
pedestrian and cycling environments throughout the Municipality, providing and
maintaining local road and drainage networks reflecting community expectations and
working with public transport providers to improve transportation in the municipality.
(Metropolitan)
Safety route review of a major road. (Metropolitan)
Significant improvement to the road network, clearly identify capital works priorities for
the short or long term. (Metropolitan)
Key Directions - Transport and Physical Infrastructure; Improve traffic safety in residential
areas, ensure safe, reliable paths, trails and public transport networks. (Metropolitan)
'We will provide a high standard of design and maintenance for infrastructure which
promotes safety and enhances the visual appearance of the city. (Metropolitan)
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
61
Develop a 'Road Safety Strategy' for the community with the aim of reducing the incidence
and severity of road accidents by providing a safer road network. (Metropolitan)
Maintenance of the Local Road Network. (Metropolitan)
Provide safe, accessible and interlinked shared footways and footpaths for pedestrians and
cyclists. Provide a safe, functional and well maintained local and main road network in
conjunction with other levels of government. (Metropolitan)
To develop and implement a roads strategy that will focus Council resources into identified
areas of need and maximise the useful life of road assets. (Metropolitan)
General statement only; 'Maintain and improve required physical infrastructure to achieve
consistent technical standards'. (Metropolitan)
Specific key improvement areas - traffic management and car parking (safety being a
major part of these). (Metropolitan)
Develop a strategic Road Network hierarchy, streetscape improvement for each town,
heavy vehicle bypasses to highway standard. (Small regional)
To provide safe and equitable access for all ratepayers, residents and visitors by the
provision of roads, streets and paths. (Large regional)
To plan, develop, maintain and manage the Shire's physical assets in a cost effective and
financially responsible manner, which will contribute to the amenity, safety, mobility and
other needs of the local and wider community.' (Small regional)
'Economics' (improving transport) eg improved curb side facilities for bus .... , 'Social'
(community safety) ego commitment to street lighting. (Large regional)
Pursue and encourage blackspot road funding applications. (Large regional)
Develop and implement a strategy to remove obstructions from nature strips and roads.
Develop a street tree management program. Implement the central works program. Plan
improvements to networks of walking, cycling, riding paths and trails. All of these
programs leave inherent imprints on road safety. (Small regional)
Bitumen resealing program, rolling assets rehabilitation
program. (Small regional)
program, road maintenance
Implementation of extensive 40 km/hr speed zone system for school crossing protection.
Construction of two bus shelters on rural roads. Formal resheet and reseal programs for
gravel and seal roads respectively. Bridge/road construction projects. Bike path
construction. (Large regional)
Traffic management
To enhance the transport systems serving the municipality by undertaking comprehensive
transport planning, improving major road access within the Municipality and to the rest of
Metropolitan Melbourne, providing safe pedestrian and cycling environments throughout
the Municipality, and working with public transport providers to improve transportation in
the municipality. (Metropolitan)
62
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE
Local areas traffic management schemes. (Metropolitan)
Develop strategies - local area traffic management, CAD traffic strategy. Provide safe,
accessible and interlinked shared footways and footpaths for pedestrians and cyclists.
Provide a safe, functional and well maintained local and main road network in conjunction
with other levels of government. (Metropolitan)
Develop and implement an Integrated Transport Strategy. Participate in review of speed
limits in residential streets. Maintenance of the Local Road Network. (Metropolitan)
Traffic management. Integrated Transport Strategy. (Metropolitan)
Specific key improvement areas - traffic management and car parking (safety being a
major part of these). (Metropolitan)
Review traffic movement, parking and pedestrian movement in CBD. (Large regional)
Develop and implement programs for traffic management and road safety. (Large regional)
Ped~manandryclistfacmti~
Providing safe pedestrian
(Metropolitan)
and cycling
environments
throughout
the Municipality.
Provide safe, accessible and interlinked shared footways and footpaths for pedestrians and
cyclists. (Metropolitan)
Traffic safety study at all school locations. (Small regional)
Plan improvements
regional)
to networks of walking, cycling, riding paths and trails. (Small
Review of bike and footpath facilities with the shire. (Small regional)
Implementation of extensive 40 kmIhr speed zone system for school crossing protection.
Bike path construction. (Large regional)
Create more pedestrian facilities in CBD. Review pedestrian movement in CBD. (Large
regional)
Use/developroad or transport strategy
Working with the Quality Community Plan Taskgroup to build community awareness of
and involvement in the implementation of the Quality Community Plan. (Metropolitan)
Implementation of the Municipal Strategic Statement. (Metropolitan)
Develop strategies -local area traffic management, CAD traffic strategy. (Metropolitan)
Develop a 'Road Safety Strategy' for the community with the aim of reducing the incidence
and severity of road accidents by providing a safer road network. (Metropolitan)
Develop and implement an Integrated Transport Strategy. (Metropolitan)
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
63
To develop and implement a roads strategy that will focus Council resources into identified
areas of need and maximise the useful life of road assets. (Metropolitan)
As part of 'Complete Integrated Transportations Strategy'; 1. Accident Blackspot analysis,
2. Apply 'Safe Routes to School' program to an area within the Municipality 3. Continue
with 'Walk With Care' and 4. Facilitate 'WalkSafe' Programs with VicRoads.
(Metropolitan)
Township Strategy Study (draft), Roads 20 year plan. (Metropolitan)
Currently a Transport Strategy is being completed. (Metropolitan)
Integrated Transport Strategy. (Metropolitan)
Develop a strategic Road Network hierarchy. (Small regional)
Adopt and implement a Municipal Transport Plan. (Large regional)
Develop and implement a strategy to remove obstructions from nature strips and roads.
Develop a street tree management program. Implement the central works program. (Small
regional)
Development of 5 year plan for capital (Small regional)
Establishment of a Transport Management Plan. (Small regional)
VicRoads programs
Apply 'Safe Routes to School' program to an area within the Municipality, continue with
'Walk With Care' and facilitate 'WalkSafe' Programs with VicRoads. (Metropolitan)
Implementation of Primary School 'Safe Route to School' program. (Large regional)
Not specific
Objective of improving safety and amenity of local residential areas. (Metropolitan)
Public safety mentioned in a broad sense under 'Improved Amenity', however not specific
to road safety programs. (Metropolitan)
Community safety and injury prevention. (Metropolitan)
Develop and implement programs for traffic management and road safety. (Large regional)
Road safety programs are inferred rather than stated in the Corporate plan ego strategies to
develop cyclic maintenance programs to ensure assets are maintained to a serviceable
standard. (Large regional)
Provision for safe mobility of the community. Meet statutory requirements.
regional)
(Small
The word 'safe' appears regularly in the Corporate Plan, but no initiatives. (Small regional)
64
MONASH
UNIVERSITY
ACCIDENT
RESEARCH CENTRE
Reduction of accident rates is an objective and a performance indicator under the transport
program. (Large regional)
Not a specific vision element although there are road safety initiatives listed under
'Economics' (improving transport) eg improved curb-side facilities for bus .... , 'Social'
(community safety) ego commitment to street lighting. (Large regional)
Only general comments, no specific programs. (Small regional)
ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS
UNDERTAKEN
BY LOCAL GoVERNMENT
65