TZD: Lessons Learned from Other Countries
Download
Report
Transcript TZD: Lessons Learned from Other Countries
Lessons Learned from
Other Countries
Paper by:
Ezra Hauer,VHB Consultant
Warnings
Interpretation of time
series:
All that glitters is not
gold
Not every change in a
time series of fatalities
is due to the most
recent intervention
Fatality “mountain” is natural
Effect of rising travel and
declining risk per mile
History
France
First fatality-reduction goal in 1997, but no change in
programs
Major political “shift” in 2002 with new programs
France -- Lessons
Public support for safety changed, quickly followed
by change in highest level political will – good
timing!
President Chirac had public support, made safety an
issue, and had functioning government machinery to
act intelligently and with resolve.
Not clear whether safety researchers were involved
in decisions, but facts developed shaped public
debate and therefore politics
No infrastructure initiatives – but probably because
chosen behavioral programs pay for themselves
France – Lessons (cont)
Seat belts and helmets work (but had already
been emphasized)
99% percent usage
Speed enforcement is important and
works, particularly if automatic!
In 2005, each driver monitored 7 times per month
Average speed of passenger cars decreased from
82.2 km/hr to 80.4 km/hr (2006 to 2008)
Percent above speed limit – 42.9% to 32.3%
Percent 10 km/hr above limit – 16.7% to 10.9%
Norway
History
Vision Zero part of National Transport Plan
2002-2011
VZ interpretation: Not likely to reach zero
fatalities or serious injuries but should see
continuous reduction toward zero
By 2020, reduce number of fatalities and
serious injuries by at least one-third as
compared with 2005-2008.
Norway
Norway – Lessons
Safety as part of National Transport Plan
Safety takes natural role as cost of mobility, not
as independent or overriding goal
Land use, transport and safety plans should be
developed together – integration
Hauer – don’t confine search to “new
programs/actions”, but ask how prevailing
arrangement need to be modified
E.g., attention paid to rural vs. urban safety
Norway – Lessons
Quantitative safety targets?
Norway has speed limit compliance, seat belt use and bicycle
helmet use 2020 targets
Positives
Communicates importance of safety, motivates stakeholders, holds
managers accountable, shows government is serious
Negatives
No clear evidence they matter in success
Difficult to predict “baseline without change” -- what would happen in
future with current policies
Possible dangers to safety programs of perceived failure
Conclusion
Overall quantitative target may not be necessary, but actions that bring
about change is
Measures to be changed should be carefully chosen based on benefits and
costs.
Sweden
History
1994: New Minister for Transportation declared
safety as priority
1997: Bill on Traffic Safety included “Vision Zero
means that eventually no one will be killed or
seriously injured within the road traffic system.”
2007: Initial goal not met (i.e., 50% fatal
reduction), so new goals and objectives set
Management by objective – new interim “action”
goals and annual analysis and conference
E.g. – Speeds, driver BAC, belt use, helmet use
Sweden
History
Sweden – Lessons
Shift from “blame the user” to “producer is
responsible for safety of the product”
New allocation of responsibility
Designers of system are responsible for design,
operation and use, and thus safety of system
Users are responsible for following rules of use
But if user fails and injuries occur, system
designers must take necessary steps to reduce
harm
Sweden – Lessons
Based on simple rules (most related to
speed)
Pedestrians not exposed to cars > 30 km/hr
Car occupants not exposed to right angle
collisions with cars exceeding 50 km/hr or
head-on with cars exceeding 70 km/hr
Etc.
These rules then lead to policies on speed
limits, roundabout use, barriers, etc.
Sweden – Lessons
Paradigm shift for U.S.
From benefit/cost analysis to “whatever it takes
to reduce fatalities”
From limited attention on speed enforcement to
speed management and design changes
To infrastructure changes based on speed “rules”
(e.g., separation of high-speed two-lane roads to
“2+1” design concept)
So do we need TZD or just better benefit/cost
based planning?
Holland
History
1987: First long-term safety plan – traditional
treatments/countermeasures, 50% fatal reduction by
2010
1996: Plan modified to include “Sustainable Safety” –
leave inherently safe road environment for future
generations
Still more emphasis on B/C analysis than in Vision Zero
1998-2002: First wave of programs
Major change – lots more km classified for lower speed limits
9.7% reduction in fatalities and 4.1% in severe injuries
2008: New 2020 plan places more emphasis on
behavioral treatments paid for by the violator
Holland
History
Holland – Lessons
Wide-spread support for SS, but
implementation seems to have stalled. Why?
Concept coined by scientists – but decisions by
politicians and they change over time
For long-term TZD success, must have support of
both US parties
Continue use of BC analysis as kingpin – parties can
change both acceptable ratio and value of life
For long-term TZD success, must rely on and thus
train road professionals in safety (planners,
designers, traffic engineers, others)
Holland – Lessons
Must decide which generation will pay for
major changes in system – ours or future
ones
Look to environmental debate
Dutch emphasis on safety in residential
areas and urban areas – will we shift to do
the same?
Holland – Lessons
Independent research institute (SWOV) is instrumental
in Holland success due to influence on policy.
SWOV is grant funded and has internal control of its
programs
US has no independent institutes – all dependent on
contracts with topics chosen by others. No long-term grants.
Prestige and knowledge of US institutes are not well used.
US model may be due to commitment to laissez faire
competition, but attraction may be in that it gives funders
control over questions asked and, to some extent, advise
given.
His conclusion: As demonstrated by SWOV, there is
another model for consideration.
UK
History
UK has long, strong history of safety programs
E.g., driver licensing, roundabouts, safety engineer
training, mandatory safety audits, etc.
1987: First numerical goal – 33% casualty
reduction by 2000.
Had 39% fatality and 45% serious casualty reductions by
1998
2000: New goals for 2010 (e.g., 40% fatal/serious
injury reduction, 50% child fatal/serious injury,
etc.)
10 themes with progress review each 3 years (but really
done annually)
UK
History
UK
History
2009: First mention of “vision” – “safety roads
in the world” (i.e., better than Sweden and
Holland re fatalities/100k population).
“A vision is not a substitute for safety strategy”
New goals for 2020 (e.g., 33% fatal reduction, 50
percent reduction in ped and bike KSI rates)
13 “Key Performance Indicators”
UK – Lessons
No new “breakthroughs”
Continued reliance on cost-effective treatments perhaps with
some new measures (e.g., lower speed limits on two-lane
rural roads)
Continued reliance on professionalism and cooperation
between research, civil service and elected representatives
No Zero Death vision
Achieving target no longer taken for granted and new
approaches might be needed in Netherlands and Sweden
Intensified application of existing measures thought to be
sufficient in UK
Where is US
UK – Lessons
Setting targets and monitoring progress is
challenging and requires resources
Must predict what would be the case in the
future under current program (baseline), which
is difficult
Must define cost-effective program of
initiatives and predict its impact
Must set up system for monitoring progress
UK – Lessons
In UK, safety had to fit between poles of
increased mobility and improved environment
If US road safety is to be elevated and based on
BC basis, estimates of dollar value of time and
life need to be re-examined
TZD allies are more likely to be in
environmental camp than in mobility camp
Both transportation planner and traffic
engineers are primarily mobility oriented
Must find out what needs to be changed to make
them friends of TZD
Questions?