road safety programs undertaken by local government...contents exec utive sum m ary ix 1.0...

ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMSUNDERTAKEN BY LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

by

Narelle HaworthNaomi Kowadlo

August, 1999

Report No. 163

glenda

Stamp

11 MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE

MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTREREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Pages42p + app

ISBN0732614627

Date

Au~st 1999Report No.

163

Title and sub-title:

Road safety programs undertaken by local government

Roads Corporation (VicRoads)TransE0rt Accident Commission

Type of Report & Period Covered:Final; 1997-1999

Author(s)N. Haworth and N. Kowadlo

Sponsoring Organisation(s):This project was funded through the Centre's Baseline Research Program for which grantshave been received from:

Department of JusticeRoyal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) LtdAbstract:

This report presents the results of a mail survey of road safety programs undertaken by localgovernment 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 GovernmentInitiative

• 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 aboutroad safety programs undertaken by local government. Road safety was mentioned in thestrategic planning documents of about half of the Councils who responded. Provision of safeinfrastructure was the major focus of road safety in planning and in expenditure terms. Sizeof the Council was a major determinant of its involvement in road safety (rather thanmetropolitan or regional location), however, among Councils of the same size, some weremuch more involved in road safety than others.

Recommendations for the repeat survey are made. A telephone follow-up of 10 Councils (7metropolitan and 3 in regional Victoria) identified a range of road safety initiatives andactivities currently undertaken by municipalities and opportunities to promote such initiatives.

KeyWords:road safety, local government

Disclaimer

Reproduction of this page is authorised 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

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.1.1 Earlier surveys 1

1.2 AIMS 3

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 3

2.0 METHOD 5

2.1 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS 5

2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES .5

2.3 FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES 5

2.4 ANALySIS 6

3.0 RES ULTS 7

3.1 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 7

3.1.1 Response rate 73.1.2 Business units responding 7

3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ROAD SAFETY 7

3.3 ROAD SAFETY IN COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES 10

3.3.1 Corporate Plan 103.3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement. 123.3.3 Municipal Health Plan 133.3.4 Road Safety Plans or Strategies 143.3.5 Allocation of resources for road safety activities 16

3.4 ROAD SAFETY ACTNITIES 18

3.4.1 Road safety activities during 1997/98 183.4.2 Proposed programs for 1998/99 203.4.3 Partners in road safety 213.4.4 Training 21

3.5 ROAD SAFETY -RELATED ACTNITIES 23

3.5.1 Safety audits 233.5.2 Enforcement 243.5.3 Street trees 253.5.4 Pedestrians 26

3.5.5 Motorcyclists 263.5.6 Bicyclists 26

4.0 FOLLOW-UP OF COUNCILS & OPPORTUNITIES TO PROMOTE ROAD SAFETY 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 335.1.2 Nonresponse to particular questionnaire items 33

5.2 COMPARISONS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALLREGIONAL COUNCILS 34

5.3 BASELINE MEASURES 34

5.3.1 Roles and responsibilities for road safety 345.3.2 Road safety in Council plans and strategies 345.3.3 Resourcing road safety 355.3.4 Road safety activities 355.3.5 Training 365.3.6 Road safety-related activities 36

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS/ISSUES FOR REPEATING THE SURVEy 37

5.4.1 Changing questionnaire items 385.4.2 Method of comparison between surveys 385.4.3 Timing of repeat survey 38

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 41

6.1 BASELINE SURVEY 41

6.2 REPEATING THE SURVEy 42

6.3 ROAD SAFETY INITIATNES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT 42

6.4 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES 43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 45

RE FERENCES 47

APPENDIX ONE QUESTIONNAIRE 49

APPENDIX TWO DESCRIPTIONS OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVESMENTIONED IN CORPORATE PLANS 61

VI MONASH UNIVERSITY ACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTRE

Tables

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 6TABLE 3.1 TYPE OF BUSINESS UNIT OF THE PRIMARY PERSON WHO COMPLETED THE SURVEy 8TABLE 3.2 TYPE OF BUSINESS UNIT OR DEPARTMENT WHICH HAS THE MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROAD/TRAFFIC

SAFETY , , , , , 8TABLE 3.3 TYPES OF BUSINESS UNITS OR DEPARTMENTS WHICH HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROAD/TRAFFIC

SAFETY. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED 9TABLE 3.4 WHETHER ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATNES WERE MENTIONED IN THE CORPORATE PLAN AS A

FUNCTION OF PERIOD OF THE CORPORATE PLAN 11TABLE 3.5 NUMBERS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS WHO MENTIONED

ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES IN THEIR CORPORATE PLANS 11TABLE 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 '" , , 12TABLE 3.7 NUMBERS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS WHO MENTIONED

ROAD SAFETY INITIATIVES OR PROGRAMS IN THEIR MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENTS 13TABLE 3.8 TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIA TNES MENTIONED IN THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC

STATEMENT. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED 13TABLE 3.9 NUMBERS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS WHO MENTIONED

ROAD SAFETY INITIATNES OR PROGRAMS IN THEIR MUNICIPAL HEALTH PLANS 14TABLE 3.10 TYPES OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES MENTIONED IN THE MUNICIPAL HEALTH PLAN.

MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED 14TABLE 3.11 NUMBERS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS WITH A ROAD

SAFETY PLAN OR STRATEGy 14

TABLE 3.12 REASONS WHY METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL AND SMALL REGIONAL COUNCILS DO NOT HAVE A

ROAD SAFETY PLAN. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED 15TABLE 3.13 How COUNCILS IDENTIFY AND PRIORITISE ROAD SAFETY ISSUES. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED .16TABLE 3.14 EXPENDITURE ON VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES DURING 1997-98 17TABLE 3.15 How MANY EQUIVALENT FULL-TIME STAFF SERVICE ROAD SAFETY 18TABLE 3.16 TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS FOR VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY ACTIVITIES DURING THE 1997/98 FINANCIAL

YEAR , 19TABLE 3.17 FACTORS THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS. MULTIPLE RESPONSES

ALLOWED '" 20TABLE 3.18 WAYS IN WHICH THE ROAD SAFETY ACTNITIES WERE EV ALUA TED 21TABLE 3.19 PROPOSED ROAD OR TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES FOR THE 1998/99 FINANCIAL YEAR.

MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED , 22TABLE 3.20 ORGANISATIONS WHICH COUNCIL COLLABORATES WITH TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY. MULTIPLE

RESPONSES ALLOWED 22TABLE 3.21 TRAINING THAT STAFF RECEIVE IN ORDER TO DELIVER ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS. MULTIPLE

RESPONSES ALLOWED '" , 23TABLE 3.22 TRAINING THAT WOULD ASSIST COUNCIL TO DELNER ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS. MULTIPLE

RESPONSES ALLOWED 23TABLE 3.23 DOES COUNCIL HAVE A POLICY OF CONDUCTING REGULAR SAFETY AUDITS OF THE EXISTING ROAD

SYSTEM? '" , , 24TABLE 3.24 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF NEW WORKS ARE CURRENTLY AUDITED? 24TABLE 3.25 THE ROLES THAT PARKING OFFICERS PLAY IN ROAD SAFETY. MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED 25TABLE 3.26 COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN VARIOUS ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTNITIES 26TABLE 3.27 COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN VARIOUS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTNITIES ...............•............................... 27TABLE 3.28 COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN VARIOUS MOTORCYCLE AND BICYCLE SAFETY ACTNITIES 28TABLE 3.29 MEAN LENGTHS OF BICYCLE PATHS AND LANES. NUMBERS OF COUNCILS WHO PROVIDED DA TA TO

EACH MEAN ARE IN BRACKETS , 28

ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMS 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 GovernmentInitiative,

• 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 inVictoria in October 1998. The survey had a good response rate and provided general anddetailed information about road safety programs undertaken by local government.

Size of the Council (as measured by annual budget) was a major determinant of itsinvolvement in road safety (rather than metropolitan or regional location). However, amongCouncils 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 whoresponded. Provision of safe infrastructure was the major focus of road safety in planning andin expenditure terms. Interestingly, recent plans and strategies were more likely to mentionroad safety, indicating a growing awareness of this issue.

Very few Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy. The most commonly reported methodsof identifying and prioritising road safety issues for a Road Safety Plan were communityfeedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments. Insufficient resourceswas the most commonly cited reason for not having a Road Safety Plan. There was a smallnumber 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 andpedestrian 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 levelof general community concern, number of crashes/injuries, pressure from specific road usergroups and encouragement by MA V or VicRoads. Almost half of the Councils spent $5,000or 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 financialyear. 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 SafetyCouncils than metropolitan and small regional Councils. Some Councils who collaboratedwith CRSCs focused on engineering road safety activities and relied on CRSCs to provideeducational programs for the community.

There was no formal training in road safety in most Councils. Road safety auditing andpromoting 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 mayimprove data quality and completeness and have advantages for both respondents and dataanalysis.

Comparisons between the surveys can be made for those Councils who respond to bothsurveys 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 before2001 to allow changes in plans to occur. If road safety activities (rather than planning) are ofprime 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 thefollow-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 developmentof 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 nothave 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 profileof road safety and improving road safety training.

Road safety plans - The opportunity exists to develop techniques to ensure that development oncecommenced, 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 access to training,particularly for staff in regional Councils

• following on from existing training, in providing encouragement for road safety auditingand implementation of results.

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 roadsafety actions at the municipal level across Victoria. The Working Party developed astrategy 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 theMinister for Roads and Ports and the Municipal Association of Victoria. The Initiativeaims to encourage councils to identify road safety problems in their municipality and formpartnerships 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 andpractices of councils in order to have a baseline measure to use in the evaluation of theeffectiveness 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 programsacross Victoria was sent to all municipalities in Victoria in 1997. The results are reportedby Arbuckle (1997). The primary officers targeted in this survey were in the engineeringand health areas. Fifty-six Councils responded to the questionnaire. Thirteen Councilssubmitted the questionnaire from both areas of operations. The questionnaire comprisedten 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 differences, with generally greaterinvolvement in road safety by metropolitan councils. However, it is unclear whether thisreflected real metropolitan-rural differences or rather the larger budgets of metropolitanthan rural councils. For this reason, the current study divided regional councils into thosewith larger and smaller budgets.

The Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales and the Institute of MunicipalEngineering Australia (NSW Division) commissioned a survey of local government roadsafety planning and activities in 1994 (Haworth and Bowland, 1995). Its purpose was toestablish 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


• RTA (Sydney Region) and the Federal Office of Road Safety in the long-termevaluation 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 (whohad also completed the mail questionnaire).

Councils were classified into four categories based on population and location to enableuseful comparisons to be made. Urban Councils were surveyed by mail or face-to-faceinterview and rural Councils were surveyed by mail or telephone interview. SeventeenSydney Councils were involved in a pilot road safety program which funded Council RoadSafety Officers (RSOs). Data collected from these Councils (some face-to-face, some mailquestionnaire) formed a sub-group against which the other Councils were compared andcontrasted.

The extent to which road safety planning was included and prioritized within CouncilManagement Plans and other planning documents was assessed, with particular attentionto:

• the existence of Management Plans

• the inclusion and level of importance given to road safety within the ManagementPlans

• 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 undertakenby Councils were examined with particular attention to:

• any road safety projects initiated/developed/implemented within the past 12 months orproposed 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.


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 GovernmentInitiative,

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 inChapter 3, then Chapter 4 describes current road safety initiatives and opportunities topromote road safety initiatives identified from the follow-up of selected Councils.Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the results and make recommendations for future surveying.


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 A4stapled 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 ofVictoria in 1997 but collected more in-depth information than the earlier questionnaire.Some questions from the 1994 New South Wales Survey of Local Government RoadSafety 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, roadsafety 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. They were addressed to theChief Executive Officer.

The questionnaires were sent out by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MA V) toincrease local government ownership of the survey and maximise the response rate. Thecovering letter and questionnaire requested that completed questionnaires be mailed toMUARC.

Questionnaires were posted on 19 October 1998, with a requested return date of 30November 1998. Councils were telephoned during the week commencing 23 November1998 to ask whether they required any assistance with the questionnaire. Approximatelyone-third of Councils returned the questionnaire by the due date. Commencing 7December 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 tocollect more detailed information from those councils who had a range of road safetyactivities/programs or exhibited opportunities to promote road safety initiatives.


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 theMunicipal Strategic Statement. Whether or not a Council perceived themselves as havinga good road safety record was noted. The Councils that exhibited all of the above qualitieswere selected.

The list of 14 candidate councils was sent to VicRoads for their input. Six Councils wereeliminated as a result of this process, and two added, and a final list of 10 Councils wasselected for follow up. Follow-ups were conducted for seven Councils in metropolitanMelbourne and three Councils in regional Victoria.

The follow-up commenced in early February 1999, when most staff had returned fromleave.

2.4 ANALYSIS

Resources and demands vary among Councils and this is likely to affect road safetyinvolvement, as well as other activities. Table 2.1 summarises the annual budgets for1997/98 for Councils in metropolitan Melbourne and Regional Victoria. The mean budgetfor metropolitan Councils is greater than the mean for Councils in Regional Victoria butthere is a large range within each group. In general, the Councils with lower budgets wereoutlying metropolitan areas or rural areas (not provincial cities). For this reason it wasconsidered inappropriate to categorise Councils into Metropolitan and Regional groupings.Instead, Councils were grouped into Metropolitan (31 Councils, of which only one had abudget of less than $20 million), Large Regional (18 Councils with budget $20 million orgreater) and Small Regional (29 Councils with budget less than $20 million).

Table 2.1 Comparison of annual budgets for 1997/98 for Councils in metropolitanMelbourne and Regional Victoria. Data supplied by the MunicipalAssociation of Victoria.

Budget measure Metropolitan CouncilsRegional Victoria Councils

Mean

$65.0 million$21.4 million

Minimum


Maximum


Less than $20 million

129

$20 million or greater

3018


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. Two Councilsresponded after this date but was too late for inclusion in the data analysis.

Six of the 31 Councils in metropolitan Melbourne did not respond, representing 23% ofthese 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 theGippsland area, one was in the Goulburn area, one was in the Ovens-Murray area and onewas in the Western District.

All of the metropolitan Councils who did not respond had budgets over $20 million. Threeof these Councils had budgets below the metropolitan average and three had budgets abovethe metropolitan average. The mean of the budgets of metropolitan Councils who did notrespond 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 lowerthan 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 helpedcomplete the survey. In most instances fewer than four people helped to complete thesurvey. 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. Theprimary person completing the survey was commonly from an engineering! technicalservices/infrastructure business unit, with a minority of persons being from planning. Theother 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 rolefor road safety. The names of the business units or departments varied somewhat and aregrouped together in Table 3.2. The most common types of business units or departmentswere the groupings "engineering" and "infrastructure".


Table 3.1 Type of business unit of the primary person who completed the survey

Type of business unit Business unit of primary personBusiness unit of other

respondentsEngineering

112

Technical Services

6

Infrastructure

113

Design

31

Client Services

4

Operations

1

T rafficfT ransportation

51

Assets

32

Planning

96

Leisure Services

1

Health/Environmental Services

2

Finance

1

Local Laws

2

Outsourced traffic service provider

3

Corporate Services

12

ProjecVcontracts management

13

Other

13

No response

4

Total

63

Table 3.2 Type of business unit or department which has the major responsibilityfor road/traffic safety

Type of business unit or department Number of Councils

Engineering

15

Technical Services

9

Infrastructure

15

Design

5

Client Services

2

Operations

1

T raffic/T ransportation

6

Assets

4

Other

5

No response

1

Total

63


A large number of other business units or departments were identified which have someresponsibility for road/traffic safety. These organisations and their roles are summarised inTable 3.3.

Table 3.3 Types of business units or departments which have some responsibility forroad/traffic safety. Multiple responses allowed

Finance I2

Health6

Human Services5

Local Laws 29

Type of business unit ordepartment

Administration

Building

Community Services

Engineering

Parks and Gardens

Recreation

Number ofCouncils

6

3

8

60

6

6

Roles

Planning, funding, policy. Parking enforcement, locallaws. Customer service. All staff encouraged toreport dangerous situations. Risk management.Staff training and claims investigation.

Access to properties under construction.Implementation, enforcement. Temporary works,hoardings.

Community awareness programs. Baby capsules.Community safety audits. Elderly transport.Disability access. Child safety education.

Design, construction and standards of roads.Provide advice. Policies for safe roads. Supervisionof work. Investigation of road safety complaints andrecommendations of possible treatments. Calmingmeasures. Asset management. Road maintenance.Liaise with Road Safety Council. Trafficmanagement. Audits. Developing programs fromCrashStats with VicRoads. Applications for funds.

None described.

Municipal Health Plan. Environmental health. Publiceducation.

Risk management. Baby capsule scheme.Community safety programs. Walk With Care, agedand disability services. Advice to elderly drivers.

Parking. Compliance. Obstructions on and overroad - physical and visual. School crossingsupervision. Enforcement and education. Strayanimals. Temporary road closures. RegulatesCouncil policies. Employment of a Safe CitiesProject Officer. Identification of issues and problems.

Maintenance of street trees and roundabouts.

Maintaining roads and signs in a safe condition.Visibility maintenance.

Bicycle strategy and bicycle education programs.Member on bicycle committees. CommunityDevelopment Officer.


Table 3.3 Types of business units or departments which have some responsibility forroad/traffic safety. Multiple responses allowed (cont.)

Type of business unit or Number ofRolesdepartment

Councils

Town Planning

Subdivision designs. Refer planning approvals to

19

Engineering Services for road safety consideration.

Plans strategic infrastructure, major roadimprovements. Traffic studies. Bicycle coordination.Traffic/Parking

Compliance. School crossing safety. Enforcementand education. Investigation of traffic issues and28

development and implementation of transport

strategies. A-frame advertising boards, tables andchairs on footpaths and other local laws. Accidentblackspot analysis.Road Maintenance8

Road maintenance. Maintenance of signs and line

markings. Rural roadworks.Other

Monitoring of physical and environmental services.

7

Response to emergencies e.g. oif spills. Service

providers to report incidents and dangeroussituations to engineering.

3.3 ROAD SAFETY IN COUNCIL PLANS AND STRATEGIES

Councils were asked whether any road safety programs or initiatives were mentioned intheir Corporate Plan, Municipal Strategic Statement or Municipal Health Plan. They werealso asked whether they had a Road Safety Plan and how Council identifies and prioritisesroad safety issues (including setting targets).

3.3.1 Corporate Plan

Of the 63 Councils who responded, 61 reported having a Corporate Plan. One Council wasstill developing its Corporate Plan and one Council did not complete this item. Most Planscovered from 1998-2000 (10) or 1998-2001 (30) (see Table 3.4).

Overall, 33 (54%) of Councils stated that road safety programs or initiatives werementioned in their Corporate Plans. Councils whose Corporate Plan commenced before1998 appeared to be somewhat less likely to mention road safety programs or initiatives inthe 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 roadsafety programs or initiatives in their Corporate Plan than large or small regional Councils,but this was not statistically significant.


Table 3.4 Whether road safety programs or initiatives were mentioned in theCorporate Plan as a function of period of the Corporate Plan

Period of Corporate Road safety plans or initiatives mentioned?

Plan

YesNoNo responseTotal

1995-2005

1 1

1996-2001

11

1997-2000

14 5

1997-2002

11

1998-1999

41 5

1998/99-2000/01

11 2

1998/99-1999/2000

11

1998-2000

55 10

1998-2001

1812 30

1998-2002

21 3

1998-2003

11 2

Being developed

11

No response

11

Total

3329163

Table 3.5 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils whomentioned road safety programs or initiatives in their Corporate Plans

Road safety programsMetropolitan

Large regionalSmall regionalTotalor initiatives mentioned

Yes

1581033

No

971329

No response

11

Total

24162363

Councils were asked to describe the road safety programs and initiatives mentioned in theirCorporate Plans. There were a large number of different responses to this open-endedquestion 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 SafeRoutes to Schools and Walk With Care.

The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in Corporate Planswere related to providing safe infrastructure, using/developing road or transport strategies,traffic management and pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Metropolitan Councils were morelikely to mention traffic management and using/developing road and transport strategiesthan were regional Councils.


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 safetyand enhances the visual appearance of the city. (Metropolitan)

Develop a 'Road Safety Strategy' for the community with the aim of reducing the incidence andseverity 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 ofneed and maximise the useful life of road assets. (Metropolitan)

General statement only; 'Maintain and improve required physical infrastructure to achieve consistenttechnical standards'. (Metropolitan)

Specific key improvement areas - traffic management and car parking (safety being a major part ofthese). (Metropolitan)

To provide safe and equitable access for all ratepayers, residents and visitors by the provision ofroads, streets and paths. (Large regional)

To plan, develop, maintain and manage the Shire's physical assets in a cost effective and financiallyresponsible manner, which will contribute to the amenity, safety, mobility and other needs of thelocal and wider community. (Small regional)

Bitumen resealing program, rolling assets rehabilitation program, road maintenance program. (Smallregional)

Table 3.6 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils whomentioned specific road safety programs or initiatives in their CorporatePlans. Multiple responses allowed

Road safety programs or initiativesMetropolitan

Large regionalSmall regionalTotalmentioned

Accident blacks pots

1102

Educate the community

3104

Provide safe infrastructure

114419

Traffic management

6208

Pedestrian and cyclist facilities

2237

Use/develop road or transport

101415

strategyVicRoads programs

1102

Not specific

34310

None

881328

Total responses

45242795

Total Councils

24162363

3.3.2 Municipal Strategic Statement

Overall, 22% of Councils who responded mentioned road safety programs or initiatives intheir Municipal Strategic Statements (see Table 3.7). While metropolitan Councilsappeared to be more likely to mention road safety programs or initiatives in theirMunicipal Strategic Statements than regional Councils, the difference was not statisticallysignificant.


Table 3.7 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils whomentioned road safety initiatives or programs in their Municipal StrategicStatements



Yes

73414

No

14131946

Total

24162363

The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in the MunicipalStrategic Statements related to providing safe infrastructure (see Table 3.8).

3.3.3 Municipal Health Plan

Overall, almost 25% of Councils who responded stated that road safety programs orinitiatives were mentioned in their Municipal Health Plans (see Table 3.9). Metropolitan,large regional and small regional Councils did not differ significantly in the proportionwho mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in their Municipal Health Plan.

The mix of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the Municipal Health Plansdiffered from those in the Corporate Plans or the Municipal Strategic Statements. Themost commonly mentioned road safety programs or initiatives in the Municipal HealthPlans related to providing safe infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist facilities and educatingthe community (see Table 3.10). Small regional Councils appeared to be less likely tomention educating the community.

Table 3.8 Types of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the MunicipalStrategic Statement. Multiple responses allowed




0000


0000


52310

Traffic management

2002


1102

Use/develop road or transport0

112strategy

VicRoads programs

0000

Other

1102

Not specific

4217

None

14121945

Total responses

27192470

Total eou ncils

24162363


Table 3.9 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils whomentioned road safety initiatives or programs in their Municipal HealthPlans



6

5314Yes

15

112046No

24

162363Total

Table 3.10 Types of road safety programs or initiatives mentioned in the MunicipalHealth Plan. Multiple responses allowed



Accident blackspots

0101


4206


4318

Traffic management

0011


3508

Use/develop road or transport2

114strategy

VicRoads programs

0000

Other

2215

Not specific

4228

None

16111946

Total responses

35272587

Total Councils

24162363

3.3.4 Road Safety Plans or Strategies

Eight of the 63 Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy (13%). A Road Safety Planwas 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 MetropolitanCouncils (see Table 3.11).

Table 3.11 Numbers of metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils witha Road Safety Plan or Strategy

Road Safety Plan MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Yes

6118

No

8111938

Under consideration

74314

Being developed

3 3

Total

24162363


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 Planbecause it was not in the Corporate Plan and nine Councils stated that road safety wascovered in another plan or strategy.

Most regional Councils said that they did not have a Road Safety Plan because ofinsufficient resources. In addition, small regional Councils were somewhat more likely tosay that they did not have a Road Safety Plan because it was not in the Corporate Plan, butless 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 donot have a Road Safety Plan. Multiple responses allowed

Reason why no Road Safety Plan MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Road safety is not a priority

0101

Hadn't thought of it

1203

Insufficient resources

5122037

Not in Corporate Plan

34714

Other competing demands - general

1225

activities

Other competing demands - other

3025

road safety activitiesRoad safety covered in a different

5409

plan or strategyNo need for a Road Safety Plan

0123

Total responses

18243377

Total Councils without Road Safety18

152255Plans

Councils were asked how they identify and prioritise road safety issues. The responseswere grouped into the categories in Table 3.13. The most commonly reported methods ofidentifying and prioritising road safety issues were: community feedback, accident records(including CrashStats) and staff assessments.


Table 3.13 How Councils identify and prioritise road safety issues. Multipleresponses allowed

Method MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Road safety audits

3137

Community feedback

138829

Based on Council documents

5218

Funds available

43411

Advice from other organisations

67316

(e.g. VicRoads)Accident records (including

137626

CrashStats)Staff assessments

971127

Not specific

1247

Other

3126

Total responses

573842137

Total Councils

24162363

Seven Councils had set road safety targets. Four of these Councils were in metropolitanMelbourne, two were large regional Councils and one was a small regional Council. FourCouncils with road safety targets had a Road Safety Plan and three had not. The roadsafety 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, someCouncils did not complete this item and, for other Councils, the estimate was not inagreement 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 theMA V. The total annual budgets of the metropolitan Councils who completed the surveyvaried from $19.1 million to $150.8 million. The total annual budgets of the regionalCouncils who completed the survey varied from $6.1 million to $106.7 million. Of theregional Councils, 16 had an annual budget of $20 million or more and 23 had an annualbudget of less than $20 million.

Councils were ask to describe and estimate the total program cost (including salaries) of arange of activities related to road safety during the 1997/98 financial year. The


expenditure on each type of activity is summarised in Table 3.14. These numbers need tobe treated with caution because some Councils may have spent money on particularactivities but were not able to identify that cost within a broader budget. The largernumber 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 largestand most common type of road safety-related expenditure by Councils. This is followedby local area traffic management and pedestrian needs. Generally educational programswere nominated by only a small number of Councils (even given the lower response ratefor these items).

Table 3.14 Expenditure on various road safety-related activities during 1997-98

Number of

Type of activity

Councils whoMean expenditure*Maximum expenditurespent money

Local area traffic management

46$218,398$5,840,000

Road construction/ realignment

61$1,940,808$20,000,000

Road safety auditing

15$5,626$150,000

Removal of roadside hazards

34$34,465$390,000

Programs to identify high

5$2,135$80,000accident risk groups

Bicycle education

6$808$30,000

Bicycle facilities

37$85,032$919,000

Pedestrian needs

44$130,052$1,200,000

Pedestrian awareness programs

6$1,740$35,000

Programs for elderly pedestrians

6$3,538$106,000

Other Total (as stated)

29$3,510,752$20,000,000

* Mean expenditure includes those Councils who said they spent no money on this area, but doesnot 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, bridgeconstruction, baby bassinet scheme, school crossing supervision and public transportfacilities.

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 percentagevalues 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 manyequivalent 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 therecorded data for this item is open to question.

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 thatthey 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 personservicing road safety than were other Councils.

Table 3.15 How many equivalent full-time staff service road safety

Number of equivalent full-timeMetropolitan

Large regionalSmall regionalTotalstaff

0

23611

0.1 - 0.9

3069

1.0 -1.9

27211

2.0-2.9

6219

3.0-3.9

4004

4.0-4.9

3126

5.0-9.9

1102

10.0 -19.0

1001

20.0 and over

0134

No response

2136

Number of Councils

24162363

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 yearis summarised in Table 3.16. The road safety activity in which Councils were most likelyto have been involved was programs to reduce speeding in local streets. Almost half of theCouncils spent $5,000 or more on these programs. Most of the expenditure was on trafficmanagement investigations (including speed analyses) and construction of treatments toreduce speeds in local streets.


Table 3.16 Total program costs for various road safety activities during the 1997/98financial year

Total program cost

Type of activity

None$1 - $999$1,000 -$5,000 orNo$4,999

moreresponse

Seatbelt wearing

573003

Child restraint use

429714in vehicles

Drink driving

525213

Speeding in local

262227 6streets

Providing road

3514554

safety information for the communityBicycle safety

3992103

programs Not driving when

564003

fatigued Other

523053

, Those Councils which spent less than $5,000 on providing road safety information for thelocal 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 WithCare, Safe Routes To Schools), employed Child Safety or Bicycle Strategy Officers or hadstaff run education programs in schools.

Bicycle safety programs ranged from Councils displaying brochures and other informationin Council offices and providing advice to schools and the community (under $5,000) toemployment 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 throughCouncils' involvement with local Community Road Safety Councils (and State EmergencyService for fatigue). It was notable that two Councils had programs to educate their ownstaff about drugs and alcohol.

Programs to increase child restraint use were commonly baby capsule loan schemes, andeducation on correct fitting and use through Maternal and Child Health, preschools andlocal Community Road Safety Councils.

Councils were asked what factors led to the development of these programs. Twenty-oneCouncils did not respond to this question. Another ten stated that the question was notapplicable because they had no programs in place. The most common response was levelof general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressure fromspecific road user groups and encouragement by MA VNicRoads (see Table 3.17).


Table 3.17 Factors that led to the development of the road safety programs. Multipleresponses allowed

Factor Number of Councils

Number of crashes/injuries

16

Level of general community concern

28

Pressure from specific road user groups

15

Outcome of safety audit

9

Encouragement by MAVNicRoads

14

Input from Community Road Safety Council

2

Other

2

No programs in place

10

No response

21

Total responses

117

Total Councils

63

In general, few of the activities were evaluated. Of the 13 Councils who said that some ofthe 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 activitiesplanned for the 1998/99 financial year. The responses are summarised in Table 3.19. Themost common programs or activities listed were: improve infrastructure, pedestrian orcyclist facilities, educational programs (including VicRoads programs) and trafficmanagement. Of the 23 small regional Councils, 5 stated that they had no road or trafficsafety activities proposed for the 1998/99 financial year and 10 did not respond to thisitem. Metropolitan Councils were somewhat more likely to list "traffic management" andlarge regional Councils were somewhat more likely to list "pedestrian or cyclist facilities"and "improve infrastructure".


Table 3.18 Ways in which the road safety activities were evaluated

Type of evaluation Number of Councils

Crash data

1

Speed measurements

1

Crash data, speed and traffic volumes and community responses

1

Community consultation

1

Evaluation questionnaires

1

Before and after surveys

1

Normal evaluation of CRSC activities

3

Safety audits

1

Community feedback

1

Performance of service provision by business units of Council

1

None

29

Not applicable

5

No response*

17

Total Councils

63

* includes one illegible

3.4.3 Partners in road safety

Councils were asked to nominate which organisations they collaborate with to improveroad safety. All Councils who responded nominated VicRoads and almost all nominatedPolice (see Table 3.20). Community Road Safety Councils were nominated by almost alllarge 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 safetyprograms. Fourteen Councils did not respond to this item (see Table 3.21). An additional28 Councils said that there was no specific training, there was on-the-job training or thatprevious qualifications were sufficient to deliver road safety programs. The most commontype of formal training was "seminarslcourses", followed by training in road safetyauditing. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likely to nominate seminars/coursesand 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 1998/99financial year. Multiple responses allowed

Type of program or activity MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Accident blackspot works

2103

Educational programs (including

75315

VicRoads programs)Improve infrastructure

69318

Investigate traffic issues

3036

Traffic management

92011

Not specific

2013

Pedestrian or cyclist facilities

410317

Road safety audit

2103

Involvement with Road Safety

1416

Council

Develop road safety strategy

4206

None

0055

No response

511016

Total responses

453529109

Total Councils

24162363

Table 3.20 Organisations which Council collaborates with to improve road safety.Multiple responses allowed

Organisation MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Community Road Safety Council

14131037

Police

21151854

Transport Accident Commission

3227

VicRoads

23162261

Other

5229

No response

1012

Total responses

674855170

Total Councils

24162363


Table 3.21 Training that staff receive in order to deliver road safety programs.Multiple responses allowed

Type of training MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Accident analysis and identification

2103


53311

Journals

0112

Seminars/courses

114419

No specific training

44816

On the job training

1102

Previous qualifications

2237

Other

3115

No response

35614

Total responses

31222679

Total Councils

24162363

When asked which training courses would assist Council in conducting road safetyprograms, most Councils nominated road safety auditing, followed by promoting roadsafety in the community and then accident analysis and identification (see Table 3.22).Small regional Councils appeared less likely to nominate training courses on accidentanalysis and identification than other Councils.

Table 3.22 Training that would assist Council to deliver road safety programs.Multiple responses allowed

Type of training MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Accident analysis and identification

147223


17131848

Promoting road safety in the

15111137

communityOther

1135

No response

4127

Total responses

513336120

Total Councils

24162363

3.5 ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES

In Section 3 of the questionnaire, Councils were asked about their involvement in a rangeof road safety-related activities.

3.5.1 Safety audits

Currently, less than one-quarter of Councils have a policy of conducting regular safetyaudits of the existing road system (see Table 3.23). However, a large number of Councilsare considering or developing such a policy. Relatively more metropolitan Councils than


other Councils seem to have such a policy currently, but about half of the small regionalCouncils are considering or developing such a policy.

Only about 20% of Councils reported that they audited all new work. Almost half of theCouncils audited none of the new work (see Table 3.24). Metropolitan Councils appearedto be more likely to currently audit all new work.

Table 3.23 Does Council have a policy of conducting regular safety audits of theexisting road system?

Regular safety audits MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Yes

93214

No

691025

Under consideration

52815

Being developed

3238

No response

1001

Total Councils

24162363

Table 3.24 What percentage of new works are currently audited?

Percentage of work MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

None

791228

Less than 50%

54514

50% or more

3126

All

81413

No response

1102

Total Councils

24162363

3.5.2 Enforcement

Councils were asked about the role that parking officers play in road safety. Notsurprisingly, enforcement of parking restrictions was the most commonly reported role (seeTable 3.25). However, providing feedback to Council about hazards, educating the publicand 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 officersplayed no role or a minimal role in road safety.


Table 3.25 The roles that parking officers play in road safety. Multiple responsesallowed

Role played by parking officers MetropolitanLarge regionalSmall regionalTotal

Give advice to Council regarding

64212

hazards

Remove stray animals from the road

1102

Assistance to the public

0202

Educating the public (e.g. school

4127

children)Target areas around schools

4206

Enforcement

147728

Minimal

4116

None

12710

Not specific

1203

Other

0213

No response

1168

Total responses

36252687

Total Councils

24162363

Overall, less than half of the Councils reported assisting Police with in-depth investigationof crash sites (see Table 3.26). Large regional Councils appeared to be less involved inthis activity than other Councils. Most Councils worked with Police to target enforcementto hazardous sites.

3.5.3 Street trees

Almost all Councils reported regularly pruning trees by footpaths, cycle tracks androadways 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 thecollision hazard for motorists.


Table 3.26 Council involvement in various road safety-related activities

Road safety-relatedMetropolitan

Large regionalSmall regionalTotalactivity

Assist Police with in-depth

Yes10 31225

investigation of crash

No14 131138

sitesMissing0 000

Work with Police to target

Yes21 121649

enforcement to hazardousNo3 3511

sitesMissing0 123

Regularly prune trees to

Yes22 152360

maintain clear visibility

No1 001

Missing

1 102

Plant only frangible trees

Yes7 4314

to minimise collisionNo14 121945

hazardMissing3 014

3.5.4 Pedestrians

Table 3.27 summarises the numbers of Councils involved in various pedestrian safetyactivities. Almost all Councils examine the safety consequences for pedestrians whenplanning traffic control devices and investigate the safety of bus stopping locations forboarding and alighting passengers. In addition, almost all Councils reported providingaccessible pedestrian refuges and painted medians where appropriate. About half of theCouncils provided accessible pedestrian refuges, painted medians and pedestrian mallswhere appropriate. Only 2 Councils currently provide programs to minimise the number ofintoxicated pedestrians but these programs are being considered or being developed byanother 7 Councils.

3.5.5 Motorcyclists

Most Councils reported considering the effects on motorcyclists of proposed trafficmanagement devices and specify that contractors sweep up loose material left on roadwaysafter construction or maintenance (see Table 3.28). Relatively few Councils promotemotorcycle 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 bicyclepaths 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 ofbicycle paths and lanes are summarised in Table 3.29.


Table 3.27 Council involvement in various pedestrian safety activities

ActivityMetropolitanLargeSmall

Totalregionalregional

Examine safety

Yes24162161

consequences for

No 22

pedestrians when

Under

planning traffic control

considerationdevices

BeingdevelopedMissing

Provide accessible

Yes24161858

pedestrian refuges and

No 22

painted medians

Under 33

consideration BeingdevelopedMissing

Provide pedestrian

Yes1510732

mallsNo951428

Under123

consideration BeingdevelopedMissing

Investigate adequacy of

Yes214328

walk phases for elderly

No171321

and those with childrenUnder14 5

consideration Being

1179developed Missing

Investigate safety of

Yes22121751

bus stops for

No1337

passengers

Under 112

consideration Being

1 23

developed Missing

Provide programs to

Yes 112

minimise intoxicatedNo16142050

pedestrians

Under4116consideration

1 1

Being

3 1

developed Missing


Table 3.28 Council involvement in various motorcycle and bicycle safety activities

Activity MetropolitanLargeSmallTotalregional

regional

Consider effects on

Yes17 122049

motorcyclists of proposed

No6 3312

traffic management devicesMissing11 2

Specify contractors sweep up

Yes19 142255loose material after

No1 112construction/ maintenance

Missing41 6

Promote motorcycle safety

Yes3 137materials

No18 141951

Missing

3115

Have a Bicycle Plan or

Yes21 121043

StrategyNo1 41217

Missing

2 13

Table 3.29 Mean lengths of bicycle paths and lanes. Numbers of Councils whoprovided data to each mean are in brackets

Type of path or laneMetropolitan

Large regionalSmall regionalTotal

On local roads

15.225.65.514.4

(15)(10)(14)(39)

Off road

25.724.76.819.1

(16)(10)(13)(39)

Shared with pedestrians

20.38.34.911.0

(13)(9)(16)(38)


4.0 FOLLOW-UP OF COUNCILS AND OPPORTUNITIES TOPROMOTE ROAD SAFETY

After the questionnaires were returned, a telephone and mail follow-up was undertaken tocollect more detailed information from 10 Councils who had a range of road safetyactivities/programs. The methods used to select the Councils for follow-up are describedin Section 2.3.

The sections below discuss the major issues relating to road safety programs oropportunities to promote road safety initiatives that were mentioned in the follow-upinterviews.

4.1 PLANNING FOR ROAD SAFETY

Mentions of road safety in Corporate Plans were often vague and of little use in directingfuture 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. Inseveral instances, Councils with Road Safety Plans were unable to locate a copy. Ifdocuments 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, butthat there was no likelihood of further aC,tionin the foreseeable future. One Council notedthat even if VicRoads provides funding for the development of Road Safety Plans, shortageof 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 anopportunity. Councils noted a number of examples of this approach. Several Councilsnoted that development of major State roads had led to changes in road use within themunicipality which allowed improvements in safety to occur.

Councils in outlying metropolitan areas had a focus on transforming essentially ruralinfrastructure into urban road systems. Opportunities exist to promote and encourage thedevelopment of infrastructure with higher safety performance in these areas.

Other Councils noted that they provided infrastructure to encourage safer road userbehaviour. One example was taxi shelters near hotels.

4.3 INTEGRATION OF ROAD SAFETY AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

The integration of road safety and community safety was mentioned by some largerCouncils. For some Councils, it was seen to be working well. Another Council felt thatroad safety was only of indirect interest to the focus on community safety and that roadsafety was largely the responsibility of the engineers.


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-upstated that they worked with their local CRSC, compared with 29 out of the 53 Councilsthat were not followed-up. The group followed up comprised 7 metropolitan and 3 largeregional Councils. Among these, the proportions who worked with CRSCs were similar toCouncils of the same size who were not followed-up. There were no small regionalCouncils in the follow-up group. Small regional Councils were less likely than otherCouncils in the entire sample to have worked with CRSCs.

Most Councils that were followed-up commented on the role played by Community RoadSafety Councils (CRSCs). One negative comment was that Councils sometimes feel thatthe CRSC "owns" road safety, rather than Council owning it. This can then be used as areason for inaction by Council.

Comments about the role of CRSCs were positive from those Councils who collaboratedwith them. Many of these Councils felt that CRSCs provided a valuable way tocommunicate road safety messages to the public. For some Councils, this meant Councilconcentrated on the engineering aspects of road safety, leaving promotion and education tothe CRSC. These Councils saw this as a useful partnership.

CRSCs were seen as a source of resource material by Councils and often mounted roadsafety displays in Council premises.

Information flow in the reverse direction was also commonly indicated. One Councilpointed 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 ashaving a proactive role, pressuring Council to install preventive measures.

The role of CRSCs in informing and motivating Councillors about road safety was seen asvaluable by Councils that worked with CRSCs.

One Council felt that the CRSC increased cooperation among local agencies with aninterest 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 legalliability 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 ofthe community, local organisations or CRSCs. One Council, however, took a pro activeapproach and put a press release in the local paper asking residents to contact Council ifthey had any safety concerns. This had a large response. In addition Council held wardmeetings and invited residents to come and voice any concerns they had regarding roadsafety. There was also a follow-up survey and investigation and Council feedback toresidents. Not only does such a process provide Council with information aboutcommunity road safety concerns, it also demonstrates to the community that road safety isa priority issue.


Analysis and presentation of local road crash data can help to raise the profile of roadsafety among the local community and among elected representatives. Mapped crash dataappear to be very powerful in this respect.

One Council noted that completing the questionnaire itself had raised the profile of roadsafety.

4.6 EFFECTS OF AMALGAMATION AND OUTSOURCING

Some Councils noted that amalgamation and subsequent outsourcing have had negativeconsequences on involvement in road safety. One Council noted that time pressures onstaff appear to have increased since amalgamation and that staff do not seem to have thetime to attend training courses. Perhaps there is potential for virtual road safety trainingmodules which can be accessed via the Internet. Such training could incorporate examplesof best practice from other Councils. This would also facilitate access to information byCouncils 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 towork 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 developmentand 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 nowthere existed a need to encourage and support implementation. This was in terms ofundertaking audits and implementing the results. The shortage of funds for remedial workwas considered a major factor in limiting implementation.

4.9 SUMMARY

The following examples of current good practice and opportunities to promote road safetyinitiatives 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 to benefit fromdevelopment of major State roads within the municipality




Working with Community Road Safety Councils was evident in the better-performingCouncils. CRSCs can:

• assist in promoting road safety and running programs if Council does not have theexpertise in this area


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


5.0 DISCUSSION

This section discusses the results of the survey in terms of the response rate, comparisonsof metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils and the baseline measures ofroad safety in Council plans and strategies as well as road safety activities. On the basis ofthe 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 resultsof the survey: failure to return the questionnaire and nonresponse to particular items of thequestionnaire.

5.1.1 Failure to return the questionnaire

Overall, 63 (81 %) of the 78 Councils returned the questionnaire by the date for inclusion inthe data analysis. This compares positively with the response rate of 72% in the earlierVictorian local government road safety survey (Arbuckle, 1997) and the 71 % of mailquestionnaires returned in the NSW survey (Haworth and Bowland, 1994).

Return rates were similar for Councils in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoriaand there was no evidence of geographical clustering. The mean of the budgets ofmetropolitan 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 lowerthan for those who did respond.

While it might be assumed that Councils who did not respond were less interested in roadsafety, the timing of the questionnaire may have meant that appropriate staff were on leaveand this prevented completion of the questionnaire.

Overall, it appears that the Councils who returned the questionnaire were generallyrepresentative of all Councils in Victoria.

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 awareof broader Council activities or may have completed the questionnaire under time pressure.

Reading the questionnaires gives the impression that respondents may not be including allthat Councils are doing, possibly because of failures of internal communications. On theother hand, the follow-ups found that some activities that were reported in thequestionnaire were unknown to the staff contacted.

In general, Councils experienced difficulty in completing the items related to resourceallocation, including overall budgets, budgets for programs and staffing allocations. Therewere some questions that were not answered because they were not applicable, forexample, questions about the content of a program which had not been implemented bythat Council.


5.2 COMPARISONS OF METROPOLITAN, LARGE REGIONAL ANDSMALL 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 regionalCouncils (and metropolitan Councils). Thus it appears that the extent of resources is themajor 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 transportstrategies than regional Councils. Staff training was more likely to involve attendance atseminars 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 ordepartment 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-quarterof the Municipal Strategic Statements and Municipal Health Plans. The likelihood thatthese 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 metropolitanand 60% of rural) indicated that their Council's major strategic planning documentsincluded reference to road safety.

Corporate Plans which were developed more recently were more likely to mention roadsafety. This suggests an increasing awareness of road safety in local government.

The road safety programs and initiatives most commonly mentioned in Council plans wererelated to providing safe infrastructure, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, using/developingroad or transport strategies (metropolitan Councils) and traffic management (metropolitanCouncils). Educating the community was more commonly included in Municipal HealthPlans 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 underconsideration or being developed by a further 17 Councils. Six of the Councils with RoadSafety Plans or Strategies were Metropolitan Councils.

The most common reason that Councils did not have a Road Safety Plan was insufficientresources, which was cited by 37 Councils. Fourteen Councils stated that they did nothave a Road Safety Plan because it was not in the Corporate Plan and nine Councils statedthat road safety was covered in another plan or strategy.


The most commonly reported methods of identifying and prioritising road safety issueswere: community feedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments.

Seven Councils had set road safety targets. Four of these Councils were in metropolitanMelbourne, two were large regional Councils and one was a small regional Council. FourCouncils 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 resourceallocation.

The estimated expenditures on each type of road safety activity need to be treated withcaution because some Councils may have spent money on particular activities but were notable to identify that cost within a broader budget. The large number of Councils who leftblanks 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 isnot 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 andpedestrian needs. Generally educational programs were nominated by only a small numberof 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 theseCouncils' total budgets for the 1997/98 financial year. The percentage values were similarfor metropolitan, large regional and small regional Councils.

A substantial number of Councils had difficulty in answering the question about how manyequivalent full-time staff service road safety. Comments were made which included: "thisis impossible to answer" and "everyone involved with roads". Thus the validity of therecorded data for this item is open to question. Almost half of the Councils had between0.1 and 2.9 equivalent full-time staff servicing road safety. Small regional Councils weremore likely to have less than one full-time equivalent person servicing road safety thanwere 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 localstreets. Most of the expenditure was on traffic management investigations (includingspeed analyses) and construction of treatments to reduce speeds.

The most common factors leading to the development of road safety programs were levelof general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressure fromspecific road user groups and encouragement by MA VNicRoads.

In general, few of the road safety activities were evaluated. A wide range of methods wasreported by the 13 Councils who said that some of their road safety activities were


evaluated, including "usual methods used by Community Road Safety Councils" andpublic 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 (includingVicRoads programs) and traffic management. Many small regional Councils stated thatthey had no road or traffic safety activities proposed for the 1998/99 financial year or didnot respond to this item. Metropolitan Councils were somewhat more likely to list "trafficmanagement" and large regional Councils were somewhat more likely to list "pedestrian orcyclist facilities" and "improve infrastructure".

Partners in road safety

Councils were asked to nominate which organisations they collaborate with to improveroad safety. All Councils who responded nominated VicRoads and almost all nominatedPolice. Large regional Councils were more likely to collaborate with Community RoadSafety 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 roadsafety programs. Almost half of the Councils said that there was no specific training, therewas on-the-job training or that previous qualifications were sufficient to deliver road safetyprograms. The most common type of formal training was "seminars/courses", followed bytraining in road safety auditing. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likely tonominate seminars/courses and less likely to nominate informal means of training thanregional Councils.

When asked which training courses would assist Council in conducting road safetyprograms, most Councils nominated road safety auditing, followed by promoting roadsafety in the community and then accident analysis and identification. Small regionalCouncils appeared less likely to nominate training courses on accident analysis andidentification than other Councils.

One possible way of providing training on promoting road safety in the community wouldbe to encourage local government staff to attend the annual Community Road SafetyCouncil Conference. This Conference could be tailored slightly to be more relevant forlocal government staff and would also enable relationships to be strengthened betweenVicRoads Road Safety Officers, Community Road Safety Councils and local governmentstaff.

5.3.6 Road safety-relatedactivities

Safety audits

Currently, less than one-quarter of Councils have a policy of conducting regular safetyaudits of the existing road system. Relatively more metropolitan Councils than otherCouncils have such a policy currently, but about half of the small regional Councils areconsidering or developing such a policy.


Only about 20% of Councils reported that they audited all new work. Almost half of theCouncils audited none of the new work. Metropolitan Councils appeared to be more likelyto currently audit all new work.

Enforcement

Councils were asked about the role that parking officers play in road safety. Notsurprisingly, enforcement of parking restrictions was the most commonly reported role.However, providing feedback to Council about hazards, educating the public andimproving safety around schools were also commonly reported roles. Given this, perhapsthere is potential for road safety training for parking officers.

Street trees

Almost all Councils reported regularly pruning trees by footpaths, cycle tracks androadways to maintain clear visibility for users. However, less than one-quarter of theCouncils had a policy for planting only frangible trees to minimise the collision hazard formotorists.

Pedestrians

Almost all Councils examine the safety consequences for pedestrians when planning trafficcontrol devices and investigate the safety of bus stopping locations for boarding andalighting passengers. In addition, almost all Councils reported providing accessiblepedestrian refuges and painted medians where appropriate. About half of the Councilsprovided accessible pedestrian refuges, painted medians and pedestrian malls whereappropriate. While only two Councils currently provide programs to minimise the numberof intoxicated pedestrians, these programs are being considered or being developed byanother seven Councils.

Motorcyclists

Most Councils reported considering the effects on motorcyclists of proposed trafficmanagement devices and specify that contractors sweep up loose material left on roadwaysafter construction or maintenance. Relatively few Councils promote motorcycle safetymaterials.

Bicyclists

About 70% of Councils reported that they had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy. Less than half ofthe small regional Councils had a Bicycle Plan or Strategy.

More than one-third of Councils did not provide information on the lengths of bicyclepaths and lanes on local roads, off-road and shared with pedestrians. Many of the Councilsnoted 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 theeffectiveness of the Local Government Road Safety Initiative. The issues to be consideredin repeating the survey include:


• 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 quality andmaintaining comparability between the two surveys.

Many Councils experienced difficulty in estimating the resources allocated to road safetyand the usefulness of the dollar estimates provided in this study is questionable. Themultiple choice format for expenditure on particular activities appeared to be easier (therewere 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 repeatsurvey. In addition, it is recommended that the item about overall annual budget bedeleted since accurate information is available from the MA V.

Many questions in the baseline survey were open-ended and the responses werecategorised and coded for presentation of the results. The option exists to present thesequestions as multiple-choice items in the repeat survey, utilising the categories derivedfrom the baseline survey. This would reduce the resources needed for data entry andprocessing and would probably result in a questionnaire that was easier for Council staff tocomplete.

5.4.2 Method of comparison between surveys

Not all Councils responded to the baseline survey and not all (and not the same) Councilsare likely to respond to the repeat survey. This raises a question relating to the method ofcomparing the two surveys. The main options are:

• to analyse only the responses of those Councils who responded to both surveys (whichallows tracking of changes in individual Councils but only for those Councils whoresponded both times), or

• to analyse all responses from each survey and make general conclusions about what ishappening 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 werereceived until 28 January 1999. Unavailability of some staff over summer holidays mayhave contributed to delays in receiving the replies but it is unlikely that the response ratewould have been higher if the questionnaire had been conducted at a different time of theyear.

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 repeatedbefore 2001, then most Corporate Plans would not have changed. The lead time fordevelopment o'f Road Safety Plans or Strategies is also likely to be considerable. Thus, ifroad safety planning is of strong interest, the repeat survey should be conducted in time to


allow changes in plans to occur, perhaps in 2001. Road safety activities may change morequickly, however. If road safety activities are of prime interest, then the survey may berepeated sooner.


6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The aims of the study were to set a baseline measure to gauge the effectiveness of the RoadSafety in Local Government Initiative, highlight current road safety initiatives and identifyopportunities to promote road safety initiatives.

This section summarises the general findings of the baseline survey and presents somerecommendations for repeating the survey. Current road safety initiatives and promotionopportunities are then outlined.

6.1 BASELINE SURVEY

The baseline survey reported here had a good response rate and provided general anddetailed information about road safety programs undertaken by local government.

Size of the Council was a major determinant of its involvement in road safety (rather thanmetropolitan or regional location). However, among Councils of the same size, some weremuch more involved in road safety than others.

The business units most commonly nominated as having the major role in road safety werethe 'engineering' and 'infrastructure' business units.

Road safety was mentioned in strategic planning documents of about half of the Councilswho responded. Provision of safe infrastructure was the major focus of road safety inplanning and in expenditure terms. Interestingly, recent plans and strategies were morelikely to mention road safety, indicating a growing awareness of this issue.

Very few Councils had a Road Safety Plan or Strategy. The most commonly reportedmethods of identifying and prioritising road safety issues for a Road Safety Plan werecommunity feedback, accident records (including CrashStats) and staff assessments.Insufficient resources was most commonly cited as the reason for not having a Road SafetyPlan. There were a small number of Councils without a Road Safety Strategy who werekeen to develop one. However, there were also a number of Councils who could not locatethe ones they had.

Very few Councils had set road safety targets.

Many Councils experienced difficulty in completing the items related to resourceallocation. For those Councils who did complete these items, roadconstruction/realignment was the largest and most common type of road safety-relatedexpenditure. Other large expenditures mentioned were local area traffic management andpedestrian needs. Educational programs were nominated by only a small proportion ofCouncils.

A substantial number of Councils had difficulty in answering the question about how manyequivalent 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 thelevel of general community concern, followed by number of crashes/injuries, pressurefrom specific road user groups and encouragement by MA V or VicRoads. Almost half ofthe Councils spent $5,000 or more on programs to reduce speeding in local streets. Few ofthe road safety activities were evaluated. Several Councils had planned a variety of


programs and activities for the 1998/99 financial year. However, many small regionalCouncils 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 SafetyCouncils than metropolitan and small regional Councils. Some Councils who collaboratedwith CRSCs focused on engineering road safety activities and relied on CRSCs to provideeducational programs for the community.

Formal training in the area of road safety was lacking in most Councils. Councilsnominated training ideas for staff that would be useful in assisting them to conduct roadsafety programs in their municipality. Road safety auditing and promoting road safety inthe community were the most commonly nominated training ideas. Several Councils felt itwas 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 newworks.

The contribution of parking officers to road safety was identified as much greater thansimply enforcing parking rules.

Most Councils were aware of issues relating to trees, pedestrians, motorcyclists andbicyclists, although there appeared to be a shortage of promotion of these issues in thecommunity.

6.2 REPEATING THE SURVEY

This survey was conducted to gather baseline data to be used in the evaluation of theeffectiveness of the Local Government Road Safety Initiative.

Conversion of some questionnaire items to multiple-choice format for the repeat surveymay improve data quality and completeness and have advantages for respondents and fordata analysis.

Comparisons between the surveys can be made for those Councils who respond to bothsurveys 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 tooccur. It may be appropriate to conduct the repeat survey in 2001 for this reason. Roadsafety activities may change more quickly, however. If road safety activities are of primeinterest, 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 selectedCouncils.

Improving road safety as part of other changes. This includes:

• adapting road classifications and use within the municipality to benefit fromdevelopment of major State roads within the municipality




Working with Community Road Safety Councils was evident in the better performingCouncils. CRSCs can:

• assist in promoting road safety and running programs where Council does not currentlyhave the expertise in this area


6.4 PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES

Promotion opportunities were identified which related to road safety plans, raising theprofile of road safety and improving road safety training.

Road safety plans - The opportunity exists to develop techniques to ensure thatdevelopment once commenced, continues and that finalised plans are actually availableand 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 for road safetyauditing and implementation of results.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was undertaken as part of the Baseline Research Program of the MonashUniversity Accident Research Centre. The baseline sponsors comprise VicRoads, theTransport Accident Commission, Royal Automobile Club of Victoria and the Departmentof Justice.

The authors wish to thank the members of the Project Advisory Committee for theirsupport and advice: Mr John Bennett of the Municipal Association of Victoria, MsPatricia Liew of VicRoads, Ms Samantha Cockfield of the Transport AccidentCommission, Mr Peter Doupe of the RACV, Mr Peter Eynaud of the Department ofJustice, and Inspector Peter Keough of the Victoria Police.

We would like to express our thanks to the staff of the Municipal Association of Victoriafor providing contact details for Councils and writing a covering letter for thequestionnaire.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the local government officers whocompleted the questionnaire.


REFERENCES

Arbuckle, S. (1997). Final report on Road Safety at Local Level. Report prepared by CNGData Services for VicRoads Road Safety Division.

Haworth, N. and Bowland, L. (1995). Survey of New South Wales Local Government RoadSafety Planning and Activities. (RN/3/95). Sydney: Road Safety and TrafficManagement Directorate, Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW.


APPENDIX ONE

QUESTIONNAIRE


~,~ •

SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD SAFETYPLANNING AND ACTIVITIES

This questionnaire has been designed to survey current road safety planning andactivity at local government level, and has been sent to all Councils. The MunicipalAssociation of Victoria (MAV) in conjunction with The Monash University AccidentResearch Centre is undertaking this study as part of the Road Safety in LocalGovernment Initiative.

The information collected will be compared with a future survey to assess thesuccess of the Initiative. Completing this survey may also assist your Council inassessing 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 theappropriate responses. If you feel that the options do not allow you to provide anadequate 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 MAILTO:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROAD SAFETY PROJECTACCIDENT RESEARCH CENTREMONASH UNIVERSITYCLAYTON 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

Naomi Kowadlo

PH: (03) 9905 4370FAX: (03) 99054363

PH: (03) 9905 4367FAX: (03) 99054363

1. Name of your Council: .

2. Which business unit/department of Council has the major responsibility for road/trafficsafety?

3. We would appreciate having a list of contact names of those persons who helpedcomplete the survey in case we have any queries. Please record your name andbusiness unit below (please print):

Primary person completing survey

(Name and phone number)

Other participants in survey(Name and phone number)

(Business Unit)

(Business Unit)

4. Please tick which business units of Council, or external providers, have responsibilityfor road safety and briefly describe their roles (Please feel free to change the names ofthe business units to suit those of your Council):

Role

- Administration

- Building

- Community Services

- Engineering

- Finance

- Health

- Human Services

- Local Laws

- Parks and Gardens

- Recreation

- Town Planning

- Traffic/Parking

- Other (specify):

D .D .

D .

D .D .D .D .D .

D .D .D .D .D .

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

- traffic safety

- safety auditing

- injury prevention- other (specify)

ooooo

1.3 In regard to which business units of Council are these terms mentioned?

Term

- road safety


- traffic safety

- safety auditing

- injury prevention

- other

Municipal Strategic Statement

Business Units of Council

1.4 Were any of the following terms, or similar terms, mentioned in Council's currentMunicipal Strategic Statement? (Please tick items which apply)

- road safety


- traffic safety

- safety auditing


Municipal Health Plan

ooooo

1.5 Were any of the following terms, or similar terms, mentioned in Council's currentMunicipal Health Plan? (Please tick items which apply)

- road safety


- traffic safety- safety auditing


ooooo

Road Safety Plan/Strategy

1.6 Does Council have a Road Safety Plan? Yes 0No 0

Under consideration 0Being developed 0

1.7 Who was/will be involved in the development of the Plan?

Continue with Q1.7

Go to Q 1.10

Continue with Q1.7

Continue with Q1.7

- Engineering Department 0- Planning Department 0- external consultant 0- VicRoads 0- other (specify)

- Corporate Services

- Community Services

- elected representatives

ooo

1.8 Who was/will be consulted in the development stage?

- VicRoads- schools

- police- service clubs

- hospitals- RAC V

- other (specify)

o - community groups 0o - business 0o - emergency services 0o - members of the community 0o -Community Road Safety Council 0o

1.9 Was or will the community be consulted or involved in the development of the Plan inany of the following ways? (Please tick items which apply)

- public meetings 0- workshops 0- draft reports for comment 0- other (specify) , .

1.10 If Council does not have a Road Safety Plan, can you specify the reasons for this?

- road safety is not a priority 0- hadn't thought of it 0- insufficient resources 0- not in Corporate Plan 0- other competing demands (specify) .

- other reason (specify) .

1.11 Has council set any road safety targets?

1.12 If so, please describe them.

Allocation of Resources

Yes D NoD

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 97/98financial 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 D- child restraint use in vehicles D- use of baby capsules D- drink driving D- speeding in local streets D- providing road safety information for persons with a non-English

speaking background D- providing road safety information for community groups D- the wearing of helmets for cyclists of all ages D- not driving when fatigued D

2.2 What led to the development of these programs? (Please tick items which apply)

- numbers of crashes/injuries 0- level of general community concern 0- pressure from specific road user groups 0- outcome of safety audit 0- encouragement by MAVNicRoads 0- other (specify) .

2.3 Were any of the activities evaluated? Yes 0 NoD

2.4 If yes, how were they evaluated?

2.5 List any proposed road or traffic safety programs or activities for the 1998/99 financialyear.

2.6 Is Council represented on the local Community Road Safety Council?Yes 0No 0

2.7 Do other road safety agencies (such as VicRoads, TAC, Police) regularly collaboratewith your council to promote road safety in your municipality?

Yes 0No 0

2.8 What training do personnel receive in order to deliver road safety programs?

2.9 Indicate what training courses would assist your council in conducting road safetyprograms.

Education and community relations

2.10 Does Council have a formal program toliaise with schools about safety issues?

2.11 If yes, does this structure include:

Yes D - Continue with Q2.11No D - Go to Q2.12

- encouraging schools to adopt road safety curricula? Yes DNoD

- encouraging schools to educate cyclists in their legalrights and responsibilities as road users?

Yes DNoD

- implementing programs to improve safety routes toand from school (in conjunction with schools)?

Yes DNoD

- lower speed zones for schools in your area?

Yes DNoD

2.12 Does Council keep the local communityinformed on road safety issues?

Yes D - Continue with Q2.13No D - Go to Q3.1

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) D- features in Council's own newsletter D

- flyers/brochures available in public places D- flyers or other printed information specifically

for persons with a non-English speaking background D

- other (specify) .

SECTION 3: ROAD SAFETY-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Road crash data

3.1 Do you have access to the VieRoads CRASHSTATSCD-ROM? Yes D NoD

3.2 How often have you used it in the last 12 months?- never D

- rarely (1-6 times) D- sometimes (6-12 times) D- often (more than 12 times) 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 thepeople 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

3.7

Does Council have a policy of conducting regular safetychecks of the existing road system (safety audits)?

Is it Council policy to conduct safety audits of all newroad and traffic management schemes?

Yes D NoDUnder consideration D

Being developed D


Being developed D

3.8 Are safety audits carried out on car parking facilities? YesD NoD

Working with Police

3.9 Do Council staff assist Police with in-depth investigationsofserious crash sites? Yes D No D

3.10 Does Council work with Police to target enforcement toproblem areas? Yes D NoD

Street trees

3.11 Does Council:

- regularly prune trees by footpaths/cycle tracks/ roadways,etc. to maintain clear visibility for users? Yes D No D

- have a policy of planting only frangible trees in areas wherethey may present a collision hazard for motorists? Yes D No D

Pedestrians

3.12 Does Council:

- consider the consequences for pedestrianswhen planning traffic control devices?

- provide accessible pedestrian refuges andpainted medians where appropriate?

- provide pedestrian malls where appropriate?

- investigate the adequacy of walk phases at signalisedintersections used by the elderly and those withchildren?


Being developed D


Being developed D


Being developed D


Being developed D

- investigate the safety of bus stopping locations for Yes DNoD

boarding/alighting passengers?

Under consideration D

Being developed

D

- promote the wearing of reflective and conspicuous

Yes DNoD

material by pedestrians?

Under consideration D

Being developed

D

- provide programs to minimise the number ofintoxicated pedestrians?

YesDNoD

Motorcyclists

3.13

Does Council consider the potential effects on motorcyclistswhenever installation of traffic management devices areproposed?

Yes DNoD

3.14

Do Council contracts specify that contractors mustsweep loose material left on roadways after constructionor maintenance?

YesDNoD

3.15

Does Council promote motorcycle safety materials such as"The Right Line" and "The Right Stuff" ?

YesDNoD

Bicycles3.16

Does Council have a Bicycle Plan or Strategy? Yes DNoD

3.17

Are there bicycle paths: on road? Yes DNoDoff road?

Yes DNoD

shared with pedestrians?

Yes DNoD

3.18

Does Council provide facilities for crossing major roadsnear bicycle paths?

Yes DNoD

3.19 Is Council involved in safe cycling promotions (e.g. Bike Ed,Cycle On)? Yes D No D

-000-

Thank you for your assistance - you have now completed the survey.

Please return the completed survey form to:

Local Government Road Safety ProjectAccident Research Centre

Monash UniversityCLAYTON VIC 3168

By 30th OCTOBER 1998

and please enclose a copy of your ROAD SAFETY PLAN (if you have one).

APPENDIX TWO

DESCRIPTIONS OF ROAD SAFETY PROGRAMSOR INITIATIVES MENTIONED IN CORPORATE PLANS

Road safety programs or initiatives reported by individual Councils as being described inthe Corporate plan are listed below. The programs or initiatives have been categorised intothe following groups: accident blackspots, educating the community, providing safeinfrastructure, traffic management, pedestrian and cyclist facilities, using or developing aroad or transport strategy, VicRoads programs, or not specific.


Accident Blackspot analysis (as part of a 'Complete Integrated Transportations Strategy'.(Metropolitan)

Pursue and encourage blackspot road funding applications. (Large regional)


To develop the community's participation in improving the quality of life by pursuinginitiatives to create opportunities for community leadership, partnerships and volunteercontributions in the Municipality, and working with the Quality community PlanTaskgroup to build community awareness of and involvement in the implementation of theQuality 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)


To enhance the transport systems serving the municipality by improving major road accesswithin the Municipality and to the rest of Metropolitan Melbourne, providing safepedestrian and cycling environments throughout the Municipality, providing andmaintaining local road and drainage networks reflecting community expectations andworking 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 forthe short or long term. (Metropolitan)

Key Directions - Transport and Physical Infrastructure; Improve traffic safety in residentialareas, ensure safe, reliable paths, trails and public transport networks. (Metropolitan)

'We will provide a high standard of design and maintenance for infrastructure whichpromotes safety and enhances the visual appearance of the city. (Metropolitan)


Develop a 'Road Safety Strategy' for the community with the aim of reducing the incidenceand 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 andcyclists. Provide a safe, functional and well maintained local and main road network inconjunction with other levels of government. (Metropolitan)

To develop and implement a roads strategy that will focus Council resources into identifiedareas of need and maximise the useful life of road assets. (Metropolitan)

General statement only; 'Maintain and improve required physical infrastructure to achieveconsistent technical standards'. (Metropolitan)

Specific key improvement areas - traffic management and car parking (safety being amajor 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 theprovision of roads, streets and paths. (Large regional)

To plan, develop, maintain and manage the Shire's physical assets in a cost effective andfinancially responsible manner, which will contribute to the amenity, safety, mobility andother 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. Planimprovements to networks of walking, cycling, riding paths and trails. All of theseprograms leave inherent imprints on road safety. (Small regional)

Bitumen resealing program, rolling assets rehabilitation program, road maintenanceprogram. (Small regional)

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 forgravel and seal roads respectively. Bridge/road construction projects. Bike pathconstruction. (Large regional)

Traffic management

To enhance the transport systems serving the municipality by undertaking comprehensivetransport planning, improving major road access within the Municipality and to the rest ofMetropolitan Melbourne, providing safe pedestrian and cycling environments throughoutthe Municipality, and working with public transport providers to improve transportation inthe municipality. (Metropolitan)


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 conjunctionwith other levels of government. (Metropolitan)

Develop and implement an Integrated Transport Strategy. Participate in review of speedlimits 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 amajor 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 and cycling environments throughout the Municipality.(Metropolitan)

Provide safe, accessible and interlinked shared footways and footpaths for pedestrians andcyclists. (Metropolitan)

Traffic safety study at all school locations. (Small regional)

Plan improvements to networks of walking, cycling, riding paths and trails. (Smallregional)

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. (Largeregional)

Use/developroad or transport strategyWorking with the Quality Community Plan Taskgroup to build community awareness ofand 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 incidenceand severity of road accidents by providing a safer road network. (Metropolitan)

Develop and implement an Integrated Transport Strategy. (Metropolitan)


To develop and implement a roads strategy that will focus Council resources into identifiedareas 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. Continuewith '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. (Smallregional)

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 specificto 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 todevelop cyclic maintenance programs to ensure assets are maintained to a serviceablestandard. (Large regional)

Provision for safe mobility of the community. Meet statutory requirements. (Smallregional)

The word 'safe' appears regularly in the Corporate Plan, but no initiatives. (Small regional)


Reduction of accident rates is an objective and a performance indicator under the transportprogram. (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) egocommitment to street lighting. (Large regional)

Only general comments, no specific programs. (Small regional)


road safety programs undertaken by local government...contents exec utive sum m ary ix 1.0...

Documents