|
Abstract
|
What we did
This reports benchmarks road safety performance in 72 urban areas, mostly in Europe, and illustrates governance solutions to improve urban road safety with case studies conducted in Lisbon (Portugal) and Riga (Latvia). The report proposes new road safety indicators to assess the level of risk for each mode of transport. Data for 31 administrative perimeters collected directly from local governments. Of these, 19 are in Europe, ten in the Americas and two in Oceania. Data for a further 41 functional urban areas (FUA) in Europe were gathered from national and European sources. A network of road safety experts was developed to support the data collection and to share experiences with road safety analysis and policy making. Members of this network met for five rounds of discussions between April 2017 and November 2018 within the framework of ITF's Safer City Streets initiative. Additional stakeholder interviews and desk research were conducted to outline the role of specific policies and governance frameworks, to highlight practical solutions and to make recommendations for improving urban road safety.
What we found
Considerable differences in fatality risk for road users exist between cities, and much can be learned from cities which have successfully in lowered this risk. Yet counting fatalities may not tell the full story of a city's road safety performance. In addition, fatalities are challenging to analyse statistically because of the relatively small numbers at the municipal level. For these reasons the analysis of traffic injury data is also important. However, injuries sustained in traffic crashes remain notoriously under-reported, and different metrics are used to score their severity in different places.
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are the most vulnerable road users; they make up about 80% of road fatalities in dense European urban areas. Non-motorised road users face a fatality risk almost ten times greater than the risk for car passengers for a given distance travelled in cities. Yet car traffic creates a far greater risk for third parties involved in crashes. Modal shift away from private motor vehicles could significantly improve road safety in dense urban areas. It would also bring public health benefits associated with increased physical activity and improved air quality. Areas where people cycle the most also have the lowest total road mortality.
Major road safety problems result from policies which have created car-dependent communities. These are often the effect of urban sprawl, fuelled by lacking integration of land-use and public transport planning at metropolitan level. Car-dependent communities generate large traffic volumes and therefore large risks. They also tend to resist policies addressing traffic volume and car speeds, since they have very little alternative mobility options.
Two examples of cities where road safety has not been a political priority and where there is large room for improvement are Lisbon and Riga. Both cities are confronted with relatively weak metropolitan governance frameworks. Nevertheless, local stakeholders found a range of ways to act on road safety. In Lisbon, linking pedestrian safety and accessibility with the needs of the senior population helped reduce both vehicle speeds and various barriers to walkability. In Riga, a dedicated Traffic Co-ordination Advisory Council has integrated road safety actions into core traffic and mobility management functions.
What we recommend
Develop mobility plans and observatories in cities
More local governments should adopt sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) at the metropolitan level. Road safety action plans should be integrated or linked to SUMPs, since road safety is critical to making active travel both popular and inclusive. Governments should establish a framework for the collection and reporting of relevant urban mobility and casualty figures. Such urban mobility and road safety observatories should also be integrated into the development and review of SUMPs. This would make it easier to analyse and interpret road safety trends. Data on user behaviours and attitudes as well as on enforcement of traffic rules could be included.
Use appropriate indicators to measure the safety of vulnerable road users
The absolute number of road traffic fatalities and injuries are important indicators for monitoring road safety trends and setting road safety targets. However, to measure, monitor and benchmark the level of risks experienced by a specific road user group, the volume of travel by that group should be controlled for. To make this possible, the number and length of trips in each mode should be systematically collected and monitored. A range of solutions are available for this purpose, including household travel surveys. To secure funding for data collection, cities should consider working in partnership with metropolitan authorities, national authorities, and authorities in charge of public health or using simplified but standardised survey methods.
Collect traffic casualty data from hospitals and from the population, not only from police records
Developing reliable data on injuries is especially important at city-level where low absolute fatality numbers can hamper statistically significant insights. All stakeholders should seek to establish protocols for the collection of injury data from the health and emergency services. Their goal should be to complement police records, which are often the only source of information on casualty numbers in spite of the notorious underreporting of casualties in police records. The categorisation of injury severity using an international medical standard called MAIS3+ is recommended to enable the monitoring of progress over time and to make meaningful comparisons across cities. Population surveys could help estimate and monitor the self-reported number of people injured in traffic, although they should not be regarded as a substitute for hospital data.
Improve the comparability of road safety statistics
The comparability and relevance of benchmarking indicators should be consistently questioned. To improve the comparability and relevance of mortality rates, especially in central urban zones where the resident population does not always reflect the true daytime activity, all cities should estimate a daytime population figure.
Adopt ambitious targets for casualty number reduction
Cities should adopt ambitious targets for reducing road fatalities and serious injuries, in line with the Safe System principles. Large performance gaps with regard to road safety exist between cities, and could help secure political support for ambitious casualty reductions.
Focus on protecting vulnerable road users
Cities should intensify their efforts in improving the safety of vulnerable road users. These make up the vast majority of urban traffic fatalities and are exposed to a significantly greater level of risk. Cities should enhance provisions for people to walk and cycle more safely and more often. A particular focus should be placed on street (re-)design and on protected infrastructure, such as segregated cycling paths. Such measures can also reduce the speed and volume of motor vehicle traffic, thus reducing the risk of road casualties, and will generally have positive impacts on public health and inclusiveness.
Conduct further research on crash risks
Crash data from a larger set of cities is needed to address open questions through more research. The relationships between urban shape, density, speeds, modal share and road user risk in particular requires further investigation. Gender questions and social aspects of road safety should also be examined in more detail. This will require robust casualty data as well as reliable data on trips. An immediate focus should be placed on the analysis of casualty matrices to reveal number of people in each user group which are killed or seriously injured in crashes involving another user group.
Local government should demonstrate leadership
Strong political leadership from local government is needed for successful road safety policies at citylevel. It should both incentivise and co-ordinate the actions of stakeholders, including ministries, local authorities, road agencies, parliamentarians, politicians and civil society. A coherent narrative which brings together transport and land-use policies needs to be developed in order to achieve the long-term goal of delivering a safe and sustainable urban environment.
Gather evidence that can serve as fundament of road safety policy
An evidence-based approach to road safety helps secure broader support for action. It would also help direct road safety investments to where they are most effective. An evidence-based approach involves gathering data on crashes and traffic incidents, developing analytical methods to understand road safety problems, and building channels for stakeholders to be consulted and to contribute.
Create strong Metropolitan Transport Authorities
Metropolitan Transport Authorities (MTAs) are the key to enhancing integration between transport and land-use planning. An MTA that covers the entire commuting area can co-ordinate among jurisdictions at all territorial levels and reduce negative consequences of urban sprawl. MTAs can effectively contribute to national policy goals (e.g. on health, environment, inclusiveness), promote integrated land-use and transport planning, and thereby improve road safety. |