Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Safety of e-bikes and other forms of micro transport

State and Territory Ministers, Emergency Services and Police are all grappling with the impact on road safety, casualties and battery fires arising from the use of non-standard, unsafe and illegal machines. This has occurred following the weakening of standards for e-bikes in 2021.

Whilst actioning these issues is of critical importance and needs to be carried out as a top priority, it is important it not be a knee jerk reaction, particularly with respect to the carriage of e-bikes on trains. E-bikes which clearly fail to meet current Transport Victoria regulations and required safety standards should be banned but there are many that meet required safety standards and there is no justification for banning them on trains or other forms of public transport.  This issue is discussed in more detail in the attached .

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

More on the SRL – Living in Fantasy Land

More on the SRL – Living in Fantasy Land 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

Delivering Melbourne Better Transport Outcomes

Big spending on monumental infrastructure projects will not solve our transport problems.

We need well targeted programs designed to improve the efficiency of our transport system in a way that enables it to meet greenhouse emission reduction targets, promotes more efficient modes of travel, particularly active and public transport, and encourages people to travel less, in a way that makes more efficient use of infrastructure. 

Other cities have demonstrated this is possible and it is time we applied lessons learnt from international best practice and there is also a financial imperative to do so.

So what should our priorities be in this situation? What strategies should we propose to ensure they are implemented, at a time when all government agencies, and communities they represent are under increasing pressure to do more with less, and what roles will State and local governments play in progressing this. This will be the subject of our forum to be held on Friday 15th November 2024, details of which are on our web site.         

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

The Need to Do More with Less

This is a new agenda for a government that has no plan of any substance for the City of Melbourne let alone the state of Victoria or the transport system itself which services both ie Melbourne and Victoria, so the task of identifying key issues and critical elements of the “Plan” must be taken up by the community.

Tightening economic conditions are now forcing the State government to make significant cuts in budget spending, review priorities and do more with less.

This has created an opportunity for advocacy groups to create a new narrative and use it to encourage government to change its focus. The questions that follow are

  • firstly what should this new narrative be,
  • secondly how could it be “sold”,
  • thirdly what would be the plan to support it and finally the strategy to implement it?

These issues are discussed in the attached position paper.

Position Paper 2024

 

 

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

There are limits to growth and these are being exceeded

Jacinta Allen said growth was to be celebrated. Our Premier clearly does not understand that there are limits to growth. Growth is an unstable state – it is not possible to keep growing forever – there are limits and sooner or later there will be the inevitable correction.

Most people understand this instinctively but it was also the subject of the first report to the Club of Rome in 1972, the findings of which were that the Earth’s resources were limited, that the demands on the planet’s resources and natural systems caused by population and economic growth could not be sustained and if maintained would result in global decline this century.

Limits to growth projections have been reviewed on numerous occasions. In 2008 Dr Graham Turner (CSIRO) reviewed the modelling and projections and concluded

  • The world is tracking the Limits to Growth ‘business as usual’ scenario which will lead to ecological and economic collapse (possibly from 2020 onwards)
  • Australian “Future Dilemmas” are also playing out with conflicting challenges over the coming decades in labour, fuel and energy, water, land, food, emissions, infrastructure demanding a range of responses but technology and marginal change are not likely to be enough (or may even make it worse).

The implications are profound but need to be overlaid with the impact of climate change and global warming. Growth today is made possible by mining the natural resources on this planet – our soils, forests, fisheries, fresh water and so on to the point where, as Turner noted they will collapse and we are seeing evidence of this today. We are already in the midst of the planet’s sixth greatest mass extinction event – caused by one species, homo sapiens and the rate of extinction is increasing, but despite constant warnings over many decades these projections continue to fall on deaf ears, particularly policy makers and politicians.

Limiting growth and reversing it must be one of the guiding principles in government policy, particularly in city and transport planning. Ultimately this will be forced on government whether they like it or not, but the correction required will grow as governments continue to pursue business as usual. The sooner this is understood and acted on the better.        

Categories
advocacy public policy sustainability governance

We Need a New Freight Plan

     

Much of the freight carried in and out of Melbourne and throughout Victoria generally was once carried by rail. Most freight traffic today is transported by road, despite the fact that rail is more efficient from an energy perspective and generates significantly fewer greenhouse emissions per tonne km.  Estimated reductions vary considerably but according to some researchers can be up to 16 times less than road freight per Tkm travelled (VAGO Effectiveness of rail freight support programs, tabled 27 June 2023).    

The attached submission Rail Futures Institute Submission to Review of the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy by Rail Futures Institute (RFI) to review the national rail and supply chain strategy provides a number of recommendations to address this challenge. Whilst recommendations proposed in the RFI submission do not include a financial analysis/business case it is likely that the return on investment for projects in this submission would be high and implemented relatively quickly and provide a quick return on investment. On this basis investment risk based on a business as usual scenario is likely to be low.

The question that must be asked is whether these measures will be sufficient on their own to arrest the continuing decline of freight on rail, a trend that started many decades ago – not only in Victoria but throughout much of the world and continues today.

Freight is a service industry where service needs such as convenience, reliability, marketing and other customer service issues as well as cost are critical. Whilst much of the infrastructure required to support rail freight has been severely neglected, ie poorly maintained and in urgent need of upgrading or renewal, there are many factors which have contributed to the decline in rail freight.

Institutional and political factors are also important. The current system has given road freight favoured treatment by government for many years putting rail freight at a significant disadvantage. This is reflected in rules, regulations and operating practices, procedures, standards and so on. These must be reviewed and redesigned or replaced in a way that promotes rail as the favoured freight carrier.

The system also includes subsidies and economic concessions, many of which are described as “externalities”, costs which road freight avoids paying or contributes very little but must pay to enable rail to compete on an equal footing. These include

  • impact on road safety and trauma
  • cost of roads and other supporting infrastructure including road maintenance
  • air/noise/water pollution and health/amenity impacts
  •  nature and landscape impacts 
  • upstream and downstream impacts
  • traffic congestion. 

    All of these issues must be addressed if rail freight potential is to be achieved but the problems are systemic, so resolving them requires a systems based approach in which there will be no simple single fix solutions. 

    It is argued this requires a review of the freight industry as a system, unpack it and identify levers that can be used to change the system in a way that increases rail’s modal share. There are many leavers that can be used for this purpose with varying degrees of effectiveness. It is argued the most powerful of these is the mindset or paradigm out of which the system is designed and operates. From this come system goals, information flows, feedback loops, stocks, flows and everything else that drives the system.

    The starting point must therefore be a change in government mindset, a mindset that must mandate rail freight as top priority and a key element in its emission reduction program supported by goals, power structure, culture, rules (incentives, punishments, constraints), information flow, feedback loops, subsidies, taxes, standards and so on. This must be reflected in government policies and requires a freight plan with implementation strategies to make it happen.

    Fortunately there are indications the government mindset may be changing. The latest State government announcement 10th Oct 2023 of A record-breaking trial run for the longest intermodal freight train will pave the way for regular, more efficient services between Merbein and the Port of Melbourne” Quoting Minister for Ports and Freight Melissa Horne “We’re laying the groundwork now for this and other services to grow as part of our long-term strategy and commitment to move more freight by rail and reduce the number of trucks on roads.’’

    This is a promising start but is only the beginning and far more fundamental and far-reaching changes are required. There is also growing pressure for all modes of travel and transport, including rail to rapidly reduce greenhouse emissions. This reinforces the need for a freight plan for the industry as a whole for the immediate, short and longer term. It must also be a plan that anticipates a rapidly changing world and future scenarios that have been discussed in an earlier blog and must be planned for.      

     

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    Time to take the Politics out of Transport

     

    Whilst building new infrastructure is important for the development of a modern transportation system, most of the critical work required to develop, operate, maintain and manage it is relatively mundane. It requires addressing many service issues, maintenance, safety, system efficiency including providing priority on roads for buses and trams, network design, timetabling, service integration and more.  

    All require a systems based approach but none are monumental in appearance and the impact is ultimately reflected in service delivery. All of this must be consistent with a vision that achieves social, economic and environmental goals and a plan to achieve them based on good governance and standards of international best practice. 

    Unfortunately transport planning and investment has become politicised. The focus today is on monumental works designed to suit political agendas which provide opportunities for political aggrandisement, designed to win votes, particularly in marginal electorates, which increasingly comes at the expense of essential work required to operate, maintain and manage the transport system.  

    This change in focus has been evident for many years but is becoming increasingly apparent, and comes at great cost. This is reflected in articles by Patrick Hatch for The Age and other reports but the issues are diverse. They include poor maintenance of rail lines, country roads and other infrastructure which impact the delivery of passenger services and freight.

    Shortfalls in maintenance funding on the standard gauge rail between Melbourne and Albury for example will seriously degrade passenger services on this line, but there are other examples. Lack of attention to service issues has resulted in declining patronage and cost recovery for all public transport services – particularly buses.

    The neglect of safety issues on our roads has resulted in increased trauma (up 18%, the highest in fifteen years) and reduced mobility for school children, students and many who are socially/economically disadvantaged. This is reflected in increased school chauffeuring (Australian children are the most chauffeured in the world – over 80% of primary and 55% of secondary school students) and resulted in a range of social (particularly health), economic and environmental costs.

    Low participation rates for active transport are the result of poor city planning and a failure to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists on roads. Transport emissions continue to rise reflecting the absence of a proper plan to meet greenhouse emission targets for transport generally within the state.

    These are only some of the critical issues that need to be addressed and given top priority. There are many more, but they do not require conspicuous or monumental works. Like most transport issues they are not solved by simply throwing a lot money at them. They usually require a systems based approach, with a range of measures, many of which require funding, but often accompanied by organisation/behaviour change and regulatory or other measures supported by sophisticated implementation strategies to make it happen. They also demand specialist skills/expertise, financial prudence and high standards of governance.

    None of these issues are unique to Melbourne or Victoria generally. They have been addressed by other cities and there are opportunities to learn from them and apply the lessons learnt here, particularly from cities that have become recognised as models of excellence.

    What is required is a new government mindset driven by a willingness to learn from other cities, use this to set new priorities to improve the functioning of our transport system, address numerous failings and create a vision for the future. This must be one that anticipates the numerous threats and challenges our city and state faces in the future and provide a pathway to navigate them. But it must also recognise the imperative to make the system we have today effective and efficient, to aim for world best practice  now so it can provide a sound basis on which to build for the future, recognising that this must be carried out in the most cost effective manner whilst meeting the social and community obligations of the entire community.  

    This is a complex challenge and requires a good understanding of the transport system, how it works and the expertise to make it happen at every level. This requires expert frank and fearless expert advice which has traditionally been provided to government by its civil service.

    Unfortunately much of this expertise has been lost or outsourced, and often no longer provided in the frank and fearless manner that was once expected. The cost of poor policy and decision making is profound and has implications for the entire community. It can be seen in issues noted above ie the rising cost of road trauma and loss of patronage and freight on our rail lines, the damage to roads caused by heavy trucks carrying freight that should be carried by rail, the health impacts of pollution. It is reflected in the quality of delivery and cost overruns for major infrastructure projects. It is also reflected in the cost of car dependency more generally and the impact it has had on city development (suburban sprawl etc). But most importantly it has left policy planning in a vacuum – without any realistic vision for the future including challenges that must be faced and a pathway to address them. 

    These shortcomings were immediately obvious to Prof Marco te Brommelstroet, Chair of Urban Mobility at the University of Amsterdam, when he visited Melbourne recently. His concerns, reported by Patrick Hatch (The Age 14 September) “we need a conversation, not about infrastructure, transport and mobility but about the cost of cars dominating our city, for the environment, for society and especially for children”.  Further, “that every child should have the right to public space, to roam, to be autonomous and the freedom to travel to school by themselves. He added “that something is going terribly wrong with young people’s mental health” and he believes designing cities to encourage connection to other people is part of the solution.  

    The impact of car dependency has been discussed for decades. Reducing it was once a priority and reflected in some of the earliest transport plans for Melbourne but it seems this goal is no longer of interest to politicians and paid lip service at best. But this will come back to haunt us as environmental pressures grow and force people to travel less often and more efficiently over shorter distances.  Meaningful progress is possible and could be achieved relatively quickly but it requires a new mindset, particularly on the part of politicians and institutional change, with a willingness to learn lessons from international best practice and apply them here. But most importantly it requires a commitment to take the politics out of transport policy and planning and delegate it to experts with a new vision and priorities that reflect the interests of the broader community.               

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    Climate Change to Sink Credit Rating

    It seems that despite this warning (Shane Wright, The Age August 21) and a cascade of others supported by dramatic evidence of global warming and climate change (extreme weather, firestorms, loss of biodiversity and species loss), the impact this is having on communities and their ability to maintain a liveable existence, the need for radical change in city and transport planning continues to fall on deaf ears.

    Mitigation efforts to-date and planned for the future remain superficial and will barely make a difference and the loss of Australia’s triple A rating by the end of the decade will be the least of our concerns.

    It should be obvious to a growing number of people that the rate of change is increasing and turning this situation around is mission impossible. Whilst it is still possible to slow the warming process humanity has no choice but to adapt and the sooner governments at all levels start planning accordingly the better for everyone.

    There is no use pretending that electric cars, solar and other forms of “green” energy and technology will solve our problems. They have made little difference to-date and emissions are still rising at an exponential rate. Smart use of technology will help if it facilitates behavioural change but will not stop the warming process and in this respect Australia is particularly vulnerable.

    As we have noted on numerous occasions, adaption will require a radical change in behaviour supported by very different expectations and aspirations to those that exist today and choices made in the future.

    Humanity will be forced to use/consume less of everything – including travel and operate within an economy in which growth rapidly becomes negative and supports fewer and fewer people. In some parts of the world this is already happening but the scale will  rapidly increase. These conclusions were very clear decades ago, and reflected in the Club of Rome’s first report on Limits to Growth in 1972 even before concerns of global warming were factored in.

    TfM has presented numerous strategies since it was established more than ten years ago to respond to this challenge. All we can do now is repeat them, encourage government to listen, take them seriously and act accordingly. The problem is not cost but lack of will and mindset to make the commitment.     

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    ACCC inquiry into Transurban’s proposed acquisition of Horizon Roads toll road

    The proposed acquisition of the Eastern freeway toll road by Transurban has raised serious concerns which are now the subject of a formal enquiry by the ACCC. TfM, T4e and VTAG have welcomed this enquiry and responded by making formal submissions three of which are attached.

    The ACCC’s concerns relate essentially to potentially anti-competitive outcomes, confining its inquiry to four key questions as follows:    

    1. “The ACCC is concerned that the proposed acquisition may substantially lessen competition for concessions to construct, own and/or operate toll roads in Victoria.”
    2. “The ACCC is considering whether Transurban has incumbency advantages from holding toll road concessions, and the extent to which the proposed acquisition could increase those incumbency advantages…..”
    3. “The ACCC is also concerned that the proposed acquisition may prevent the emergence of a key rival to Transurban for future toll road concessions…..”
    4. “The ACCC is also considering the extent to which the Victorian Government can constrain Transurban in future toll road concession sale processes.”

    However the implications are much broader and raise issues of governance and proper process. These are discussed in VTAG and T4e submissions attached. 

    As noted in the first VTAG submission it also raises serious questions about the tolling model itself and the extent to which the proposed acquisition would perpetuate current concerns.   

    At a Transport Technology World Congress at the World Trade Centre in 2016, Singaporean Managers hearing Transurban present at a Congress, examined the data presented on toll revenues v. expenditure. They were stunned that Victoria allowed this model, astounded that toll revenue was not going into State revenues to fund hospitals, schools, railways and housing and other needed infrastructure – as they would in Singapore.  They were adamant Victoria was being short-changed and that their Land Transport Authority (LTA) and political leadership would not countenance such a private sector funding model in Singapore to public detriment! They could not comprehend a State leadership so lacking in financial acumen and consideration of the public interest!”

    These issues should be understood by the Victorian community and have implications for all Victorians. 

     VTAG submissions to ACCC toll road inquiry

    T4e Submission_ACCC Transurban Inquiry July 2023_FINAL 18.07.23

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    The Public Interest Demands Greater Transparency of Government Priorities and Contracts

    The report by The Age on 6th June about concerns that the process used for awarding the government contract for a new ticketing system is flawed is a concern, particularly given problems experienced  with the ticketing system in the past. It is critical that government gets it right this time but is a new ticketing system such a high priority at a time when concerns are being raised about rapidly rising and unsustainable government debt?  

    Whilst there are problems with the existing system, the first question that should be asked is how serious are they, can they be fixed easily, if so how quickly and at what cost. Is it worth getting a new ticketing system and all the teething problems it would entail if the problems with the existing system can be fixed quickly at relatively little cost? That is the “do nothing” base case and must be used as the basis for ranking alternative options.

    The second question that must be asked is how does this project rank with competing needs – other measures required to improve transport outcomes for the public transport system as a whole?

    In the table provided in my blog dated 12/5/23, ticketing ranked 17th in terms of customer service priorities for public transport based on research by Prof Graham Currie which he presented at our annual forum in 2018. If one casts a wider net, by including priorities for other travel and transport modes including active transport, road safety and the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions the ranking for a new ticket system would fall even further. So where is the business case that justifies funding for a new ticketing system and its ranking above other areas of need?

    Whilst there have been some concerns about the need to improve the ticketing system, up until now there has been no urgency to fix it, so what has changed to make this a top priority and rush the process? Projects like this need careful planning. The user specification needs to be well thought out to ensure it delivers what we need. The premier is impressed with a system that uses only bankcard or a smart phone but forgets that there are many people who don’t have either of these and that provision must also be made for special tickets for concession card holders. Failure to provide for these would discriminate against people who are poor or socially disadvantaged.

    The evaluation process for any contract must be carried out according to well established guidelines and procedures. The process must be transparent and open to scrutiny. It is normal practice to accept the lowest conforming tender. Government would require very good reasons to accept the highest bid, which in this case is almost double the lowest tender. Concerns have been raised about the experience of the successful tenderer Conduit, which is better known for its hardware than whole integrated systems, particularly when it is software issues that often end up becoming the most difficult to resolve.

    The most likely conclusion one can draw from this situation is that the ticketing contract is another politically inspired project that will deliver a marginal improvement in public transport service outcomes at best, that the process appears to have been rushed and lacks transparency.

    The public has a right to know more about the basis on which this contract has been awarded and how the government can justify awarding it to the highest tenderer. But even more important, the government needs to explain why a new ticketing system ranks ahead of other areas of far greater need, particularly when it ranks only 17th in terms of customer service priorities.   

    Adherence to proper process by government is critical. Without this we can expect more funds spent on projects that deliver minimal or suboptimal outcomes at best. If this project is rushed with insufficient planning it risks significant cost overruns, similar to what has occurred with many other major government projects today.  If the vast sums of money spent on our transport system over the last decade had been invested wisely it would have generated far better transport outcomes than exist today. Some would argue that it would have been sufficient to provide Melbourne with a world class public transport system, a system that would have serviced the entire city – a far cry from what we have today.  

     

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    Transport, Governance and Unsustainable Debt

    “Victoria has the worst debt burden of 17 similar states across the world, and credit agencies warn it is likely to deteriorate unless tough decisions are made to cut infrastructure spending and raise more taxes” …..

    “Brendan Coates, of the Grattan Institute, said the government continued to face tough choices, and urged it to review the viability of the Suburban Rail Loop, the only project not subject to the federal review of infrastructure spending”. Sumeyya Ilanbey State political reporter for The Age May 25.

    None of the this should come as a surprise. The re-emergence of tough financial times has been predicted for many years and governments, corporations and individuals with high levels of debt will always be vulnerable. Unfortunately this is only the beginning. Much harder times are forecast for Australia and the global economy later this year and next, which some economists predict will result in a severe economic downturn that could rival the GFC or even the Great Depression. The warning signs were clear enough so why was government not listening and was the high level of debt really necessary in the first place?

    These were issues that concerned TFM when it was established more than ten years ago, when the State government changed its transport investment priorities to major infrastructure projects. Spending on capital works has ballooned since and has become the main source of Victoria’s state government debt.

    Government maintains this “investment” is necessary to promote jobs and economic growth but this is a very weak argument. Capital works of this nature are not labour intensive and the jobs multiplier effect is relatively low. If government was serious about creating jobs there are far more effective ways to do this in areas of real need, particularly in the government and community services sector.

    But more importantly we challenge the notion that investment in new infrastructure, particularly large, mega projects is a sound investment in the first place. This was the subject of my first blog in 17/8/20 and concerns raised in it have been repeated regularly since. The business case for all projects in the “Big Build”, particularly the Suburban Rail Loop is weak and our advice is to terminate the lot, focus instead on actions that will generate measurable benefits quickly at minimal cost – what we call low hanging fruit of which there are many, maximise the use and effectiveness of existing infrastructure before building new and apply lessons that can be learnt from international best practice. 

    Sumeyya Ilanbey reported AMP Capital chief economist Shane Oliver saying that “if state debt continued to grow as projected, Victorians would end up paying the price with higher taxes in the near future and diminished government services”. We agree but it will also result in significant job losses and that is a high price to pay for what is largely the result of a failure in governance and proper process.  

    Categories
    advocacy public policy sustainability governance

    Addressing Road Safety Critical For Transition to More Sustainable Transport

    Safety has always been a critical issue for pedestrians and is the main reason why cycling numbers are so low in Australia. Whilst there has been a major improvement in road safety over recent decades (peaking in 1970 with 3798 deaths in Victoria alone), progress during the last decade has stagnated and roads remain deadly, particularly for the elderly, the handicapped such as those with impaired vision or hearing, the young, pedestrians and cyclists. The increase in Victoria’s road deaths in the year to 31 March  by an additional 23 to 259, an increase of 9.7%, is a major concern and comes at significant cost to the community. 

    In a summary report by the Australian Automobile Association (AAA) in 2017 it was estimated that the cost of road trauma nation wide for the 2015 calendar year was $29.7 billion, the economic cost of each road fatality was $4.34 million and the cost per hospitalisation caused by road injury was $239,000. These figures probably are an understatement, particularly in cases of trauma that result in life long pain and suffering.  Despite substantial reductions since 1970 road trauma remains a major cost to society. Further, the complex nature of accident protection is such that it requires constant vigilance to address changes in the transport environment and emerging threats to road safety, and continual maintenance and development of strategies and programs to keep these in check. It also requires a culture of continual improvement to reduce it. Without this there is a risk that the incidence and cost of road trauma can easily grow again. In this respect it is important to understand the history.

    The situation in the 1970’s had become so bad that it demanded fundamental system change but there were no magic fix solutions. It required a multi facetted approach to change driver behaviour, improve vehicle and road infrastructure design, policing and public education. The measures included vehicle safety design enhancements (crumple design etc, introduction of seat belts), safety helmets for cyclists and motor cyclists, initiatives against drink driving, improved enforcement technology, improved roads, and the introduction of public safety campaigns. But probably the most important factor was a  change in mindset at a political and institutional level. Where as today there exists a high degree of awareness of road safety, in the days of an emerging new technology in the transport industry safety matters had not been a consideration. The change in mindset was reflected by the establishment of the Transport Accident Commission in 1987 which had the reduction of the incidence and cost of road accidents as one of its primary objectives, and emulation of the Swedish model “Vision Zero” as its ultimate goal.  This approach was supported by the Monash Accident Research Centre and quickly enabled Victoria to become the leading State in Australia for road safety.

    But gains in this area require continuing political support and can be quickly undermined by complacency and inappropriate government policy.  This occurred during the term of the Kennett government when the emphasis on road safety declined and speed limits were lifted on many main roads. Unsurprisingly the trend in road trauma quickly reversed. There is concern that a similar situation is occurring today, and that this is being driven by economic pressures and changing government philosophies and priorities.

    Prevention strategies of any kind invariably produce far better outcomes than those that focus on the “cure”. This certainly applies to road trauma. Public health and safety campaigns, community education, effective policing and infrastructure improvements all play a critical role in reducing road accidents, but these are not always vote winners and are easily cut, particularly during times of economic hardship – a situation that is becoming increasingly apparent today.

    Government city planning and economic development strategies are not helping either. Both promote continuing expansion of Melbourne and regional cities which in turn creates the need for more car-based travel over longer distances and at greater speed. All of these create the potential for more accidents and more serious accidents. This concern is supported by the fact that deaths from motor accidents are over represented in rural areas by a large factor where higher travel speeds over longer distances dominate. The risk of dying on country roads in 2017 was five times greater than Melbourne. In that year road deaths in rural Victoria (109) outnumbered deaths in Melbourne (103). This is one of a number of indicators that demonstrate that strategies to promote economic growth in Melbourne come at a high cost.  

    The need to lower speeds in suburban streets has been recognised for a long time. A 50 kph default speed limit was introduced in built up areas in Victoria in January 2001 but there has been pressure to reduce this further to 40 and ultimately 30kph, particularly for suburban streets. Paris has followed the example of a growing number of French and other European cities and towns by introducing a 30kph for the entire city with the exclusion of a small number of main roads that connect Paris to other cities.  Whilst the principal aim of this strategy was to reduce vehicle emissions by getting people out of their cars and use public transport, walking or cycling or travel less it will deliver a significant reduction in road trauma. 

    Governments should also promote safer modes of travel such as public transport for more trips instead of the motor car and encourage people to travel less and at lower speeds as part of its safety campaign. This would complement environmental strategies designed to reduce greenhouse emissions. 

    There is also a need to provide greater protection for vulnerable road users; pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists are 34 more times likely to be injured than the occupant of a motor car and 4.5 times more likely to die. Safety concerns are also being raised about the risk quiet cars, particularly EV’s pose for vision or hearing impaired pedestrians. There are many ways in which roads can be made safer for this cohort, many at very little cost, but despite the obvious benefits, progress to-date has been slow and inadequate.

    The TAC is well abreast of all the above but its programs need government funding supported by a mindset and priorities that Vision Zero is the only acceptable target, rejecting any view that death on our roads is an inevitable consequence of economic development. Any budget cuts to road safety will compromise these objectives and be a false economy. Government must also reflect road safety goals in strategies for other portfolios, not just transport but also environment, public health, city planning and development and be a lever that helps provide a transition to a more sustainable future.