3.1
It is generally accepted that road users will make at least some errors while driving, riding, or walking. Accordingly, there is a need to ensure that the road network is forgiving of user error such that errors to not lead to fatal or serious injury. Speed management will be at the heart of this approach, as both the likelihood and severity of a road crash will increase with speed.
3.2
However, also crucial is road infrastructure which creates an environment where safety is prioritised—through measures that increase a driver’s level of awareness; separate traffic flows; or separate vehicles from other road users. Infrastructure will also be critical to speed management, with many stakeholders now calling for more ‘self-explaining’ roads which, by design, encourage safe speeds and discourage unsafe behaviours.
3.3
This chapter considers infrastructure and its connection with road safety, with a particular focus on project design. Topics covered include:
Infrastructure design and planning.
Road safety treatments (suggested by stakeholders)
Infrastructure in regional and remote areas
Infrastructure improvements for vulnerable road users
Measures to encourage active travel.
3.4
The chapter concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
3.5
It is noted at the outset that many of the treatments and road infrastructure upgrades covered in evidence will require targeted and sustainable funding. Funding and investment are discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 4).
Infrastructure design and planning
3.6
Stakeholders indicated that prioritising road safety at the infrastructure and systems design phase will be critical to improving road safety outcomes and ensuring funding is used effectively, for example by avoiding the need for upgrades later in the life of an asset. Stakeholders noted that infrastructure and systems design must consider the needs of all road users (especially vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and people with disability); and should consider behavioural risks as well as physical hazards.
3.7
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (HFESA) stated that ergonomic, user-centred design should be firmly embedded across the transport system, noting that sectors such as rail have made human factors a key component of systems engineering. HFESA noted that while guidance on ergonomic design in engineering exists, it may not be used. As a result:
[Road users] regularly encounter poor road and traffic engineering design, [including] signs located too [early on a road]; pedestrian signals that provide no feedback to users…missing signs; …poorly designed signs; [and] speed limits that are not perceived as credible [for the relevant road].
3.8
HFESA noted that considering human factors issues early in the design process can substantially reduce costs associated with upgrades. It drew attention to the Australian standard AS7470: Human Factors Integration in Engineering Design (for rail projects) and stated that this standard could easily be adapted for road safety and adopted in the design, development, maintenance, and use of the road transport system.
3.9
Roads Australia (RA) observed that new technologies provide opportunities for the reduction of road trauma in the immediate and longer terms. For example, by interrogating data produced using digital engineering solutions and linking this to safety outcomes, safer design decisions can be made.
3.10
Stakeholders identified a need to review design standards and guidance to prioritise safety. Ihe Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) noted that a greater focus on risk management is required, stating:
We design roads to a safe standard, but road safety is [also about] understanding that people will make a mistake. Therefore, while a design standard says that a tree is located in a reasonable position for traffic, the road safety lens says that, if somebody falls asleep at that location, they're going to be fatally or seriously injured. We can't protect against everything, but we need to at least have that lens over everything that we do.
3.11
Engineers Australia (EA) called for standards to be reformed to prioritise safe speeds (ahead of stopping distance, horizontal curve radii, pavement elevation; and lane width). In addition, EA stated that all activities that contribute to road safety must be ‘focused through the design lens’ and be underpinned by staff capability and appropriate resources.
3.12
The ACT Government noted that there have been advances in guidance for road and street design (particularly guidance developed by Austroads) and stated that the Commonwealth has a leadership role in this space.
3.13
Some stakeholders noted that public engagement at the infrastructure design stage could be improved, with a view to ensuring the needs of all road users are considered. Stakeholders also noted that ongoing feedback on design (over the life of a project) should be encouraged.
3.14
In addition, stakeholders indicated that states and territories are taking steps to ensure safety is prioritised in infrastructure design. For example, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) noted that the state’s Road Safety Policy for Infrastructure embeds Safe System principles in the design of infrastructure projects. Consequently, costs associated with safety are considered before a project is approved.
The Movement and Place approach
3.15
‘Movement and Place’ is an approach to infrastructure and city planning that recognises the different roles of roads and streets: facilitators of transport or travel (movement) and destinations in their own right (place).
3.16
Under this approach, roads are classified using a matrix which compares movement and place needs. Roads with a greater capacity to facilitate the convenient, affordable, safe movement of people or goods rate higher on the ‘movement’ axis, while roads with high levels of commercial activity or with natural or cultural significance have a higher ‘place’ rating—with greater consideration given to pedestrians and vulnerable road users. Once a road is classified, it can be planned, developed, and operated.
3.17
The Movement and Place approach is outlined in Figure 3.1 below.
3.18
Some stakeholders called for the Movement and Place approach to be used in all infrastructure and transport planning, up to and including the reclassification of some roads to effectively balance multiple uses.
3.19
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) noted that holistically considering movement, place, and safety is critical to road safety.
3.20
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) stated that the Movement and Place framework is increasingly used to define which roads should be prioritised for mobility and which are prioritised for amenity, noting that research is underway to develop a road safety framework that complements Movement and Place.
3.21
The Amy Gillett Foundation (AGF) supported the Movement and Place approach but indicated that there should be greater consideration of cycling in determining how roads are classified. AGF said that making provision for cycling within Movement and Place would ensure changes to the road environment do not come at the cost of one or more groups of users, noting that European cities have implemented programs to encourage cycling and other modes of active travel as a means of improving road safety outcomes.
Education and training for road safety professionals
3.22
Stakeholders noted that improving infrastructure design and planning will require training to be implemented in road authorities.
3.23
For example, EA noted that it is critical for road design decision-making to include people with technical safety and engineering expertise. EA called for professional training in road safety for all people responsible for system design, as well as for those working in complementary fields such as land use, transport economics, and occupational safety.
3.24
According to HFESA, a key reason Australia has not embraced human factors integration in road safety is the lack of targeted training for road and vehicle designers and traffic engineers. In this respect, HFESA noted that as most engineering degrees do not have a significant focus on human factors safety, engineering knowledge about relationships between people and their actions and the road system is poor. This affects the quality and safety of road design.
Road safety treatments
3.25
Some stakeholders drew attention to road treatments that may be effective in enhancing safety outcomes, proposing that these be considered at the design stage or implemented later as a means of improving the quality and safety of the road.
3.26
For example, 3M called for improvements to signage, recommending that authorities mandate use of Class 1100 signs—particularly for what 3M described as ‘critical and disadvantaged’ situations such as:
High speed roads, whether motorways or rural highways.
‘Complex’ areas such as commercial centres and high traffic roads.
Overhead and far shoulder signs where illumination levels are low.
Blackspots, schools, silver zones, pedestrian zones, and work zones.
3.27
3M recommended the use of fluorescent signs in areas where there are high concentrations of vulnerable road users and in work zones. According to 3M, increasing visibility may cut night-time crashes by up to 48 per cent.
3.28
3M also noted that there are opportunities to work with local government to conduct audits of signage on the roads for which they are responsible, to enable signs to be upgraded, repainted, or replaced according to need. Local councils should also consider re-painting signs using fluorescent or reflective paint to increase visibility. While these initiatives may require federal funding, the costs are relatively low, and savings can be realised through integrating the upgrade and maintenance of road signage into other infrastructure or road safety projects.
3.29
3M also called for greater use of wet reflective line markings across the road network, noting that this has the potential to significantly reduce rates of single-vehicle crashes on Australian roads. 3M recommended that standards for road markings be harmonised across jurisdictions, either by adopting the relevant Austroads standard or using it as a model.
Roads and infrastructure in regional and remote areas
3.30
Several stakeholders raised concern that drivers face significantly elevated risks on regional roads compared with roads in metropolitan areas, noting that this is due to a combination of poor road quality and unsafe speeds. Stakeholders called for action to improve the quality of roads in regional areas, including through targeted Commonwealth funding.
3.31
RA, for example, expressed concern that around 35 per cent of travel in Australia occurs on roads rated at one or two stars, emphasising that efforts must be made to reduce this percentage as soon as possible. RA also noted that due to lower levels of enforcement activity, regional, rural, and remote areas see higher levels of risk-taking behaviour. Combined with the lower safety of the roads themselves, this can lead to elevated risks of trauma.
3.32
The National Rural Health Alliance (NRHA) observed that governments must prioritise maintaining and upgrading roads in rural areas, noting that this is particularly important for vulnerable users such as inexperienced drivers, elderly people, and people with disability. NRHA stated:
Rural roads are often loose, unsealed, and potholed, and poorly engineered, with inadequate lighting and few safety barriers. These conditions combine to contribute to the unacceptable level of road safety hospitalisations and deaths of rural road users. Upgrading, sealing, and regularly maintaining the quality of roads will play a significant role in reducing people’s risk of injury.
3.33
MUARC stated that programs to upgrade the rural highway network and priority state arterials to Safe System standards are essential if fatalities and serious injuries are to be eliminated by 2050. These will need to include:
Installing flexible barriers on both sides of the carriageway on divided roads and side and centre barriers on undivided roads.
Upgrading high-speed rural intersections to Safe System standards, for example through grade separation or installation of roundabouts.
Maintaining road markings to ensure assistive technologies can function effectively, and to facilitate the introduction of autonomous vehicles.
3.34
ShoulderMaster Pty Ltd (ShoulderMaster) stated that clear, rational policy on upgrading and maintaining road infrastructure in rural communities is critical to achieving Australia’s 2050 road safety targets, noting that:
Roads in regional areas frequently follow their original alignment and are not designed or constructed for today’s traffic loads.
Regional roads are often narrow, with unstable, non-uniform shoulders, edge breaks and drop-offs which present hazards for drivers.
3.35
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) stated that a first step towards road safety improvement is to apply a star rating to all roads on the network (noting that at present just 200,000km of 900,000km is rated), so that funding can be targeted to areas of greatest need.
3.36
Stakeholders acknowledged that raising the quality of regional, rural, and remote roads may be costly and time-consuming, given the size of the road network and the need to work with more than 500 local councils. However, where more significant upgrades are not feasible in the short term, low-cost treatments can still be implemented.
3.37
The Office of Road Safety (ORS) said that government is concerned to ensure that jurisdictions’ suite of efforts to address safety gaps on regional, rural, and remote roads including relatively simple, low-cost treatments, such as audio-tactile line markings, median treatments, and shoulder sealing.
Level crossings
3.38
Some stakeholders observed that level crossings present a particular safety risk for both vehicles and vulnerable road users. Calls were made for safety at level crossings to be substantially improved or, if this is not possible, for crossings to be closed.
3.39
Ms Madeline Bott noted that there are more than 23,000 level crossings in Australia, with just 21 per cent covered by ‘active’ controls such as flashing lights, bells, or boom gates. ‘Passive’ crossings (controlled only by signs) are also more common in regional, rural, and remote areas. Ms Bott noted that a high number of fatal and serious injuries occur at these crossings and raised concern that there has been a failure to install active safety measures.
3.40
Ms Bott told the committee that no new crossings should be constructed, and that existing crossings should be upgraded to:
Make train-activated warning lights mandatory—at least where it is not possible to close the crossing or introduce grade separation.
Decrease speed limits on highways approaching level crossings on a national and permanent basis. This would involve reducing speed limits from 100km/h to 80km/h.
3.41
In addition, Ms Bott stated that measures should be implemented to make trains more visible—including reflective material and upgrades to lights.
3.42
Ms Bott also noted that the NRSS 2021–30 is silent on risks associated with level crossings, and called for measures to improve safety at crossings to be included in the strategy, including:
Interface agreements between rail and road transport managers.
Updating the register of level crossing technologies and engineering interventions held by the Australian Centre for Rail Innovation.
Investing in up-to-date research and analysis on level crossing safety.
Allocating resources to a national level crossing strategy.
Monitoring of active controls to avoid system failures.
3.43
Stakeholders indicated that work is underway in this area. For example, RA noted that the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator is developing a National Level Crossing Portal to provide a significant data set to guide safety investment. RA stated that this data should be used by governments to prioritise the safety of high-risk level crossings, particularly in regional, rural, and remote areas.
Infrastructure improvements for vulnerable road users
3.44
Stakeholders highlighted infrastructure improvements that could be made to enhance road safety for vulnerable users including cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists. This was in addition to the more general position noted above that the needs of vulnerable road users should be prioritised at the infrastructure and system design stage.
3.45
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) observed that in certain locations, road treatments to protect vulnerable road users have reached saturation point. ARRB indicated that careful planning is needed to ensure treatments are applied to areas of greatest need and where the treatments will have the greatest impact.
Motorcyclists
3.46
Inquiry participants indicated that more should be done to improve safety outcomes for motorcyclists through new or upgraded infrastructure, noting that motorcyclists are overrepresented in fatal and serious injury statistics.
3.47
For example, the Australian Motorcycle Council (AMC) stated that there is insufficient consideration of motorcyclists’ needs at the infrastructure design stage and called for measures to ensure federally funded infrastructure projects are designed to assure safety for motorcyclists. AMC observed that this would avoid the need for costly upgrades after the infrastructure has been constructed or installed.
3.48
ARRB observed that guidance materials related to infrastructure design can help significantly lower crash risk for motorcyclists. ARRB noted that engineering knowledge on this matter is readily available and should be integrated into national engineering guidance. ARRB stated:
A suite of infrastructure countermeasure treatments for each of the key motorcycle crash types identified in the crash data have been published…in the Austroads report Infrastructure Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties (Austroads 2016). The objective would be to transition these countermeasure treatments to best practice. Treatments must be integrated into national practitioner guidance, so they are required to be proactively provided.
3.49
As to the of infrastructure that should be installed (and to illustrate potential failures at the design stage), the Motorcycle Council of NSW (MC NSW) noted that while bottom rub-rails on W-Beam barriers are being installed to reduce motorcycle trauma, research shows that in half of all motorcycle impacts with barriers the rider remains upright on the motorcycle—with injury more likely to be caused by the tops of the posts. MC NSW stated that designing and installing of a top rub-rail should be given high priority.
3.50
As regards the quality of roads, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (MBL) noted that construction workers may leave roads in a state which is safe for most users but not for motorcyclists. MBL provided the following case study:
Adrian (not his real name) was travelling slowly around a bend on his motorbike when he crossed an area of soft bitumen that caused his front wheel to slip…He broke multiple bones and underwent surgery to have metalware inserted to his thumb and collarbone to support the bones…
[Adrian stated] ‘I’m frustrated that a bad repair with soft bitumen was originally done on this road, causing me to be injured. I hear of poor repairs on our roads quite a bit from fellow motorbike riders’.
3.51
AMC indicated that failures to prioritise motorcyclist safety in the design and construction of infrastructure may be due (at least in part) to the abolition of the Australian Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee (AMSCC) in 2010. AMC noted that since the AMSCC was abolished, motorcyclists have lacked the strong national voice needed to drive safety improvements, not only in infrastructure but also regarding vehicle safety and rider equipment. By contrast, road users such as cyclists are well-represented at the national level. AMC called for re-establishment of the AMSCC as a national voice for motorcycle safety.
3.52
The Riders Action Group Western Australia (RAGWA) also supported the establishment of a consultative committee. However, RAGWA also noted that ensuring participation by motorcyclists and representative groups could be challenging, stating:
One might think that state-based…representative groups would have a key voice. However, that would rely on such groups existing, functioning properly, and representing the views of riders. At present, that is not possible. The fact is that state-based rider representative groups are and have been for some time in a parlous state. They are incapable of policy representation on road safety to state governments, never mind a national committee.
Pedestrians
3.53
Stakeholders called for infrastructure treatments to be applied to existing roads or adopted during the design phase to improve safety for pedestrians.
3.54
For example, WalkSydney highlighted the following treatments to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users at intersections:
Raised pedestrian crossings (‘wombats’).
Decreased use of ‘beg buttons’ at crossings, with pedestrian phases as the default condition.
Long pedestrian phases to allow for diagonal movement at intersections.
Increased pedestrian detection technology at signals.
Widened, sharpened corners at intersections, to minimise the time that pedestrians are vulnerable at crossing points and to force lower speeds.
3.55
The Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) similarly called for changes to intersections to improve safety for pedestrians, highlighting the value of ‘scramble’ crossings (these halt traffic—including bicycles—on some phases to allow pedestrians to cross at any angle). Other proposed measures included countdown timers on wait phases, and phases controlled by the numbers of pedestrians at an intersection rather than numbers of cars.
3.56
PCA also raised concerns about pedestrian safety on shared pathways. While applicable Austroads guidance specifies that shared paths must be at least 2.5 metres wide, this is rarely followed—leading to the installation of narrow paths without the capacity to accommodate increasing volumes of pedestrians, cyclists, and e-scooters. PCA provided the following example:
The Pyrmont Bridge in Sydney [is] a shared path. It's the only place in New South Wales where there's a speed limit; it's 10 kilometres per hour. …The average speed in the afternoon is 27 kilometres an hour, where the speed limit is 10, yet not one cyclist has been booked. Not one cyclist in the whole of last year was booked for speeding in New South Wales. [Further,] all of them are souping up the bikes. All of them ride on footpaths. The big agencies like Domino's and Uber and everyone else—they don't care less.
3.57
PCA stated that a reason why infrastructure and other elements of the road system are not designed to ensure pedestrian safety is the lack of a strong national voice for pedestrians. PCA explained that this is because few people think of themselves as pedestrians (that is people who make a conscious choice to walk rather than using another mode of transport), speculating that this leads to decisions about system design and funding that prioritise cars over pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
3.58
Safe Streets to School asserted that children should be separated from fast-moving traffic to enable walking or riding to school in safety. It called for pedestrian priority crossings and footpaths on streets with speed limits of 40km/h or higher, and 30km/h limits on streets without crossings or footpaths, where the street is within two kilometres of a school.
Cyclists
3.59
Several inquiry participants indicated that infrastructure enhancements are critical to improving safety outcomes for cyclists, noting that measures to protect these road users will be increasingly important as the gig economy continues to expand and cycling grows more popular as an active travel choice. Stakeholders raised concern that most Australian cities have under-developed cycling infrastructure.
3.60
To illustrate where infrastructure is not meeting the safety needs of cyclists, the Institute for Sensible Transport (IST) drew attention to a market research exercise commissioned by the City of Melbourne, which found that:
The ‘overwhelming majority’ of Australian city and town streets have no bicycle infrastructure.
Most cities have ‘proposed’ rather than existing bicycle infrastructure.
By contrast to other OECD countries, Australia lacks a federal program to fund a safer bicycle infrastructure network.
3.61
AGF stated that there is ‘great scope’ for governments at all levels to take a leadership role in encouraging the provision of safe infrastructure for cyclists, stating that governments should improve their positive provision policies to ensure that safety of all road users is considered as part of all construction or upgrade projects. According to AGF, Infrastructure Australia may be able to play a role in delivery of bicycle infrastructure by:
Ensuring consistency between national and state bodies.
Establishing processes to ‘fast-track’ action on bicycle infrastructure.
Assisting state and local governments with technical support in relation to project ideation, appraisal, financial assessment (cost-benefit analysis), and evaluation—based on national best practice.
3.62
A focus area for several participants was infrastructure to separate cyclists from other road users (particularly motor vehicles). Stakeholders indicated that this would help reduce road trauma and encourage people to take up active forms of travel (thereby reducing congestion and contributing to emissions reduction). Stakeholders noted that separated bicycle lanes are increasingly important for gig economy workers such as delivery riders.
3.63
AGF, for example, voiced support for separate bicycle lanes and sealed shoulders—particularly in rural and remote areas. AGF told the committee that separate bicycle lanes allow the Australian road network to be more forgiving of road user error (which is almost inevitable):
YouGov did a survey last year around separated bike lanes and shoulders, and 75 per cent of drivers said that they would feel more comfortable if cyclists had their own lane …the highest number of those were in rural and regional New South Wales and Queensland. If you've ever driven a truck on a country road with no shoulder, and you're going 100 kays and the bike is going 25 kays, it's a terrible outcome for everyone. That's why we're talking about how these roads should have sealed shoulders and, where possible, it should be separated because it's much better for all transport users.
3.64
AGF also noted that separate bicycle lanes are closely correlated with cyclist confidence, stating that while just six per cent of people feel confident on roads without separated bicycle lanes, over 80 per cent are confident to ride on roads with lanes separated by protective barriers.
3.65
Streets Alive Yarra (SAY) also supported separated bicycle lanes, indicating that whether a lane should be separated by a physical barrier or by road markings will depend on multiple factors including the nature and purpose of the road and anticipated traffic volumes.
3.66
In its submission, SAY noted that there is a clear opportunity to reduce road trauma by building 30km/h low traffic neighbourhoods linked by a cohesive network of protected bicycle lanes, indicating that this would be particularly valuable for workers in the growing gig economy.
3.67
Some stakeholders also noted that separated bike lanes can be installed on an interim basis at very little financial or time cost—pending installation of permanent infrastructure. For example, IST noted that a lesson learned during the COVID-19 pandemic is that the quantum of protected bicycle infrastructure can be increased quickly with pop up lanes.
3.68
ARRB noted that it is often difficult to identify locations where off-road bicycle paths can be implemented around existing infrastructure. However, it also observed that on-road paths separated physically from traffic are a viable safety solution. ARRB added that bicycle paths should be a key consideration in greenfield developments, noting this is an area which is often overlooked.
3.69
Other upgrades were also suggested. AGF noted that roundabouts present a particular challenge for cyclists, and that it is ‘really interested’ in design changes to ensure rider safety. AGF added that while Austroads has recommended design changes in relation to roundabouts, these have not yet been reflected in official guidance material.
3.70
SAY indicated that work should be done to improve bicycle infrastructure in and around schools—particularly bike sheds, noting that while cycling can be an ideal transport choice for younger people, facilities often lack the space necessary to store high numbers of bicycles.
3.71
Stakeholders indicated that plans for improving bicycle infrastructure exist at the state and local government levels, but that additional funding may be needed. For example, SAY told the committee that:
If the federal government was to make funding available either to state or local then I'm comfortable that they would put it into the priority areas, first into the strategic cycling corridors and then, once that was built out, into the remainder of the Principal Bicycle Network. Alternatively, if the federal government was to make funding available to local government councils, then the funding priorities there are equally clear. They would work to invest in traffic-calming infrastructure such as slow points or narrowing or modal filters that effectively divert commuter through traffic away from local rat runs and onto declared arterials.
3.72
IST observed that around $130 million in funding is needed (at least as a starting point) to plan and construct the bicycle infrastructure necessary to assure meaningful improvements to road safety outcomes:
[T]he $130 million is recognised to be a starting point based on what other countries in the OECD spend at a national level on bicycle infrastructure. It's not designed to replace the investment that is made by local government or by state government. It is simply there to recognise the national responsibility [of] the Commonwealth to provide different transport opportunities for people and to ensure people can conduct themselves in a safe environment.
3.73
Stakeholders also indicated that coordinated national planning for cycling infrastructure may be valuable. For example, AGF noted that a national ‘Safe Main Streets’ program could fast-track safe cycling infrastructure in areas that need it most.
Intersections
3.74
Stakeholders noted that intersections present a very high road safety risk, particularly for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians. This is due to various factors, including a failure to design intersections with the needs of vulnerable users in mind and a lack of targeted investment.
3.75
ARRB, for example, told the committee that most intersections across Australia do not satisfy the Safe System approach for at least some road users, asserting that this is a result of intersection design philosophy and guidance not being inclusive of Safe System principles. According to ARRB, intersections must be designed to reduce conflict points between road users, with a focus on achieving Safe System speeds. Where these speeds cannot be achieved, pedestrian and cyclist facilities should be integrated into the design, with a view to either physically separating vulnerable road users from vehicles or establishing priority crossing areas.
3.76
EA raised concern that road projects in urban areas often focus on reducing congestion and improving traffic efficiency, without proper consideration for the needs of vulnerable road users:
[A] lot of fatalities tend to be at signalised intersections on the urban fringe, where speed is an issue. We need to look at things like using fewer traffic signals and more roundabouts…[In] best-practice countries—typically Sweden, England, and Holland—you simply cannot put in a set of traffic lights at a crossing or a T-intersection above 60 or 70 kilometres per hour.
Encouraging active travel
3.77
In addition to expressing support for measures to protect vulnerable road users, stakeholders indicated that measures to encourage active travel (for example walking or cycling) should be adopted. Inquiry participants noted that encouraging people to choose active travel over driving will not only improve road safety outcomes but promote better health and contribute to lower congestion and reduced emissions.
3.78
30Please advocated for measures to increase the numbers of people using active travel, telling the committee that 70 per cent of children and 91.5 per cent of young adults do not meet recommended daily physical activity levels. 30Please expressed optimism that a combination of technological advances, climate change mitigation strategies and greater focus on the health benefits of active travel will lead to higher adoption rates of active transport as a mode of travel. However, 30Please stated that without significant changes to Australia’s city road systems, there is a high risk that many new active travel users will be killed or seriously injured.
3.79
WalkSydney called for a greater number of active travel connections to existing infrastructure and walking and riding routes on all major projects, and for funding for public domain works at and around schools to ‘overturn the widespread practice of drive-to-school’.
3.80
MAV expressed concern that many people do not have access to adequate footpaths and bicycle lanes, stating that local government should be empowered through sustainable funding to deliver safer walking and riding infrastructure. The benefits of investing in local amenity include job creation; local economic development; reduced congestion; and improved health.
3.81
The ACT Government similarly observed that the benefits of active travel include reduced congestion and air pollution, asserting that more should be done to improve safety and encourage active travel through infrastructure design guidance and standards. Noting that the Commonwealth plays an important role in funding road projects, the ACT Government stated that there is an opportunity to ensure funding arrangements provide for active travel infrastructure alongside infrastructure designed for vehicles.
3.82
However, the ACT Government added that it can be difficult to secure funding under the National Land Transport Act 2014 (NLTA) for projects to encourage active transport. The ACT Government indicated that this is because the NLTA has a focus on road and freight-based projects:
When we propose a project to the Commonwealth for funding…often it will not just be a road project; it will be what we call a strategic road corridor, so it includes all that multimodal infrastructure as well, including, potentially, off-road cycle paths. Often those can be funded through the framework as it is at the moment, but we'd like to see a greater recognition of the importance of funding the entire multimodal corridor; not just…motor or freight-based transport options. The potential for dedicated active travel projects to be funded through this, I think, is the real opportunity.
Infrastructure under the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
3.83
A priority area for the NRSS 2021–30 is infrastructure planning and investment, with the strategy noting that even low-speed collisions can result in fatal or serious injuries if the road environment is not designed to take account of the physical vulnerability of all road users.
3.84
In particular, the NRSS 2021–30 recognises that a shift is needed from a traditional road classification system to focus on people in the design and construction of the road network. Accordingly, the strategy supports use of Movement and Place to inform road infrastructure and system design. The strategy also highlights the importance of pedestrian safety and asserts that understandings of the Movement and Place approach must expand to fully recognise walking as a mode of transport.
3.85
Movement and Place is however a relatively new approach to infrastructure and systems planning, and accordingly time will be needed across the life of the NRSS 2021–30 to embed the Movement and Place approach across all levels of government. This was reflected in evidence provided by ORS, which stated that there is a ‘huge amount’ of work ongoing to understand the function and purpose of roads and associated infrastructure.
3.86
Improvements to infrastructure, underpinned by government funding, are reflected in action items across the NRSS 2021–30, for example, the strategy notes that the government will:
Deliver measurable improvements in safety via infrastructure funding at all government levels and support local government embed and deliver road safety across their business as usual.
Deliver systematic safety improvements on a road corridor basis against baseline assessment network safety plans.
Implement staged Safe System treatments for roads with higher traffic volumes, including median and roadside flexible safety barriers
Implement staged risk-reduction treatments for roads with moderate to high traffic, including audio-tactile line markings, median treatments, targeted stretches of barrier treatment, shoulder widening and sealing, intersection treatments, and protection on curves and from hazards.
Implement treatments for the protection of all vulnerable road users.
3.87
Action items are also underpinned by infrastructure-related performance metrics, such as the share of travel on roads rated three-stars or above; share of road length with motorcycle-friendly crash barriers; and share of state and territory governments and local councils with a fit-for-purpose road safety risk assessment as an investment plan for infrastructure.
Committee view
Infrastructure and systems design
3.88
The committee heard that prioritising safety at the design phase is critical to improving road safety outcomes, as well as to ensuring that funding is used effectively for the benefit of all road users. The committee heard that infrastructure and systems design must consider the needs of vulnerable road users (and not only passenger vehicles) and should build in consideration of how users will interact with the road system.
3.89
The committee welcomes adoption of the Movement and Place approach to infrastructure design and is pleased that this approach is a key feature of the NRSS 2021–30. The committee is also pleased that the approach as it appears in the strategy has a focus on pedestrian safety—while also noting evidence that the approach could give greater consideration to the needs of other road users such as cyclists.
3.90
Evidence indicates that design guidance for infrastructure exists, including guidance on prioritising human factors, which has been adapted from the rail transport sector. However, the committee was concerned to hear that this guidance is not widely used for infrastructure projects.
3.91
The committee also heard that there are opportunities to improve existing guidelines and standards, including by using data generated via digital engineering solutions. The committee notes in particular that guidance and standards must prioritise safety and include risk management processes which focus on the behaviours of road users.
3.92
In the committee’s view, there are opportunities for the Commonwealth to work with states and territories and other stakeholders to support the development and implementation of nationally consistent guidelines and standards for road infrastructure, building on existing guidance material. The standards should give full consideration to the Movement and Place approach and ensure safety and access for all users, including physically vulnerable groups such as cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists—noting that road users have different safety needs.
3.93
The committee notes in this respect that there is a range of existing guidance that should be considered, such as the Austroads report Towards Safe System Infrastructure: A Compendium of Knowledge. Other relevant material is also mentioned below. In addition, the committee considers that guidelines and standards should be regularly reviewed as understandings of road safety continue to evolve.
3.94
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments and other stakeholders such as Austroads to support development of nationally consistent guidelines and standards for road infrastructure which:
align with the movement and place approach;
incorporate Safe System principles;
ensure safety for all road users, with a focus on vulnerable road users;
optimise access for people with disability;
prioritise human factors design and risk management;
make provision for active travel infrastructure; and
3.95
The committee also considers that the Commonwealth should take steps to ensure that best-practice design guidance is embedded in all infrastructure and road safety projects. Noting that a key policy lever is funding, the committee will explore this issue further in Chapter 4.
3.96
The committee also notes the view that education and training for road system designers and those engaged by road authorities will be necessary to enhance infrastructure and systems design and planning. In this respect, the committee encourages organisations to embed road safety training in their business practices, and to actively recruit for staff with engineering and technical safety expertise—with a focus on human factors safety.
Regional, rural, and remote roads
3.97
The committee heard that the quality and safety of road infrastructure in regional and remote areas can be considerably worse than infrastructure in metropolitan areas. This, combined with higher speeds on many regional and remote roads, leads to elevated risks of road trauma.
3.98
Many stakeholders asserted that government at all levels should prioritise maintaining and upgrading roads in regional and remote areas, providing examples of the treatments that may be effective and calling for targeted, sustainable investment by government. Stakeholders also indicated that a necessary first step in many cases will be to apply safety star ratings across the road network so that funding can be targeted to areas of greatest need.
3.99
The committee notes that the NRSS 2021–30 includes a series of action items related to improving safety on regional and remote roads. These include the development of network safety plans to underpin targeted investment, and delivery safe system treatments on regional and remote roads—including several of the treatments raised in evidence during this inquiry. The strategy also proposes actions to lower speed limits on regional and remote roads and to develop ‘self-explaining’ roads that intuitively lead users to safe behaviour. The measures are underpinned by metrics based on star ratings.
3.100
The committee also notes that the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety recommended that the Commonwealth work with other jurisdictions and local governments to collect accurate data on the current condition and rate of change of Australian roads and identify priority roads for targeted investment with a view to improving safety performance. The committee supports these recommendations.
3.101
This committee recommended in Chapter 4 the Commonwealth increase funding for safety improvements on regional and remote roads, make funding conditional on the provision of data to inform assignment of star ratings, and publish ratings to enhance accountability. The committee encourages the Commonwealth to implement these recommendations and—as part of this work—to consider the treatments outlined in this chapter.
Level crossings
3.102
The committee heard that level crossings present significant safety risks to both drivers and vulnerable road users, with calls for safety at crossings to be enhanced or—if this is not possible—for crossings to be closed.
3.103
The committee is pleased to note that the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (NRSR) is developing a National Level Crossing Portal to support investment in safety at crossings. However, the committee is concerned that level crossing safety does not feature in the NRSS 2021–30.
3.104
Accordingly, the committee considers that level crossing safety should be included in the NRSS 2021–30, and the Commonwealth should work with states and territories and the NRSR to identify initiatives to improve the safety of level crossings—including through targeted investment.
3.105
The committee recommends that the Australian Government:
Include measures to increase safety at level crossings in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030; and
Work with state and territory governments and the National Rail Safety Regulator to investigate opportunities to improve the safety of level crossings, including through targeted investment.
Infrastructure improvements for vulnerable road users
3.106
The committee heard that there are a several measures which could be implemented to enhance safety for vulnerable road users, with stakeholders calling for treatments for the needs of specific groups of road users including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists to be fully considered at the infrastructure design stage—noting that these groups of road users will often have very different needs.
3.107
The committee strongly supports full consideration of the needs of different road users at the infrastructure design stage, and accordingly recommends that best-practice guidance be developed, implemented, and embedded in infrastructure projects using funding as a lever. The committee encourages the Commonwealth to consider existing guidance on safety for specific road users (such as the Austroads report Infrastructure Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties) as part of this work.
3.108
The committee also notes that it has recommended that the Commonwealth look to establish dedicated funding categories for safety improvements for vulnerable road users, including cyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians.
Motorcyclists
3.109
In addition to calling for consideration of motorcyclists at the design phase, stakeholders indicated that specific safety treatments such as top-rub rails must be prioritised. The committee notes the NRSS 2021–30 includes as a performance metric share of roads with motorcycle-friendly crash barriers and encourages the Commonwealth to install top-rub barriers as part of the work under the strategy—supported by targeted investment.
3.110
Evidence also indicated that one reason that motorcyclist safety may not be given sufficient priority is the lack of a national voice such as the Australian Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee (AMSCC), which was abolished in 2010. In this respect, the committee notes that the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety recommended establishment of a national consultative committee on motorcycle safety, to ensure motorcycle safety is prioritised at the national level. The previous committee noted that this would involve engagement with the Office of Road Safety (ORS).
3.111
The committee strongly supports greater engagement on safety between motorcyclists and the government. However, noting that the response to the previous committee’s inquiry states that ORS will work with key motorcycle stakeholders in the NRSS 2021–30 to establish consultation processes which support motorcyclist safety, the committee does not propose to make further recommendations of its own.
Pedestrians
3.112
The committee heard there are a variety of treatments that could be applied to existing roads or adopted in infrastructure design to improve road safety for pedestrians. Many of these related to improving road safety at intersections by prioritising the needs of pedestrians over vehicles.
3.113
As noted above, the committee has recommended that infrastructure design guidance be developed that separately considers safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and guidance be embedded in infrastructure projects via funding arrangements. As part of this, the committee encourages government to consider guidelines relating to safety at intersections, such as the Austroads report Understanding and Improving Safe System Intersection Performance.
3.114
The committee also notes that the NRSS 2021–2030 includes an action item focused on infrastructure treatments for the protection of all vulnerable road users. The committee encourages the Commonwealth to ensure that this work considers the needs of pedestrians (and other groups of road users) separately, noting again that their needs may be different. The committee also strongly encourages the Commonwealth to consider the treatments outlined in evidence before this committee.
Cyclists
3.115
The committee heard that quality infrastructure is critical to safety outcomes for cyclists—including in the gig economy—with stakeholders expressing concern that the majority of Australian city and town streets lack appropriate cycling infrastructure (notwithstanding plans to install such infrastructure on some parts of the network).
3.116
The committee heard that there is widespread support for separated bicycle lanes (including physical separation if possible) as a means of reducing road trauma and increasing cyclist confidence. According to some stakeholders, separated lanes can be installed at lower cost—at least where separation is indicated by lane markings. Other measures were ensuring bicycle paths are a key consideration in greenfield projects, improving the design of roundabouts, and enhancing bicycle infrastructure at schools.
3.117
The committee recommended that infrastructure design guidance be developed that separately considers cyclists and other vulnerable road users, and that guidance be embedded in infrastructure projects via funding arrangements. As part of this, the committee would encourage government to consider guidance on improving safety for cyclists at roundabouts and on providing for cycling infrastructure in relation to all road projects.
3.118
The committee also notes that the NRSS 2021–30 includes as action items embedding Movement and Place across the network and implementing treatments for vulnerable road users. The committee strongly encourages the Commonwealth to install separated bicycle lanes across the network.
3.119
Projects to enhance cyclist safety also require sufficient resources. As noted above, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth look to establish funding categories for specific safety improvements, and that one of these be cyclist safety. The committee notes the view that approximately $130 million is needed as a starting point to put in place the infrastructure needed for meaningful road safety improvements for this cohort.
Encouraging active travel
3.120
The committee heard there is support for measures to encourage the use of active travel (such as walking or cycling), with stakeholders indicating that greater uptake of active transport could substantially improve public health and environmental outcomes.
3.121
The committee has recommended that design guidance be developed and implemented to support road safety for vulnerable road users, and that this be embedded in infrastructure projects through funding arrangements. Targeted funding for treatments to improve safety and boost confidence for pedestrians and cyclists have also been recommended.
3.122
The committee also notes that the NRSS 2021–30 includes a strong focus on embedding the Movement and Place approach across the road network, with greater consideration of walking as a transport choice. The committee supports this approach and encourages the Commonwealth to also embed considerations of cycling as an active travel choice.
3.123
However, the committee also notes concern that it can be difficult to secure funding under the National Land Transport Act 2014 for projects which encourage active travel, as the Act may have a stronger focus on road transport and freight projects. Accordingly, the committee considers that there would be merit in reviewing the Act to ensure that it enables funding for infrastructure projects which cover entire road corridors, including any active travel infrastructure to be installed on and around the relevant road. The committee also encourages the Commonwealth to provide in its funding arrangements for projects that include active travel infrastructure.
3.124
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the National Land Transport Act 2014, to ensure that it enables funding for projects which capture entire road corridors, including infrastructure which supports safe active travel.