Local road safetypolicymaking in Flanders
Towards an integral approach
Hans TormansTransportation Research Institute (IMOB)Hasselt UniversityWetenschapspark 5 – 3590 Diepenbeek, [email protected]: +32 (0)11 26 91 37
2
� EU:
� Fatalities
� 2009: 34.500
� 2008: 38.900 (� -11%)
� 2001: 54.302 (� -36%)
� 1991: 75.426 (� -54%)
� Target 2000-2010: -50%
� Injuries
� 2008: 1.631.412
� 2001: 1.986.645 (� -18%)
� 1991: 1.907.125 (� -14%)
Road safety fact-sheet
Source: CARE
4
� Belgium (2008)
� Fatalities: 904 (2000-2008: -36%)
� Injuries: 64.436 (2000-2008: -5%)
� Target 2010: 500 fatalities
� Flanders (2008)
� Fatalities: 495 (2000-2008: -43%)
� Injuries: 41.072 (2000-2008: -10%)
� Target 2010: 250 fatalities
� Inside built-up areas
� Flanders: 49,8% of fatalities
� Pedestrians/bicyclists
� Children and elderly
Road safety fact-sheet
Source: Statbel
5
� Legislation/policy plans
� European
� Federal
� Regional
� Provincial
� Local
� Urban transport policymaking
� 308 municipalities
� Politicians – town council
� Administration
� 118 police zones
� Public transport providers (De Lijn, NMBS)
� Stakeholders
� Users
Urban Road Safety Management
6
� Covenant-policy (°1996)� Voluntary agreement
� Collaboration, consultation, participation and harmonization
� Coordinated allocation of resources
� Multimodal approach
� Partners involved:� Flemish Government
� Municipal authorities
� De Lijn (PT)
� Provinces and ‘third parties’
� Outcome:� Local mobility plans
� Coordination of mobility projects (modules)
Urban Road Safety Management
7
� Evaluation (Polders, 2010)
� Strengths
� Clear vision
� Motivation
� Participation
� Coordination
� Weakness
� Political continuity
� Internal conflicts - Mutual recognition
� Know-how
� General municipal policy
Urban Road Safety Management
8
� Methodological approach
� Not just remedy, but address at the source � internal organization
� Self-assessment procedure
� Framework = Total Quality Management
“A comprehensive and structured approach to organizational management that seeks to improve the quality of products and services through ongoing refinements in response to
continuous feedback.”
Aim: “Road to excellence”
Research objective
9
� Key elements:� customer orientation
� commitment and leadership of senior
management
� planning and organization
� using quality management techniques and
tools
� education and training
� involvement and teamwork
� measurement and feedback
(Vinni, 2007)
Total Quality Management
14
� IV. People and resources
Organization
� HRM� Financial mgt.� Empowerment and delegation
� Data mgt.� Process mgt.� Daily mgt.
15
� V. Infrastructure and engineering
Road Safety Actions
� Trigger� Preparation� Involvement and collaboration
� Follow-up
19
� IX. Self-assessment and follow-up
Analysis
� Instruments� Level� Adjustments� Management of change
21
Levels of development
� Ladder of maturity
Phase 4: integral
Phase 2: isolated
Phase 1: ad-hoc
Phase 3: system oriented
23
Phases (3)
1. Organization: “Behind the screens”
2. Road safety actions: “Context and content”
3. Analysis: “Feedback”
“What” and “How”?
modules (9)
aspects (35)
points of interest (140)
Levels of development (4)1. Ad hoc
2. Isolated
3. System-oriented
4. Integrated
Conceptual model
24
� Framework for continuous improvement
� Allow policymakers to self-assess their organization and
performances in a structured manner
� Involve (all) stakeholders in the organization’s
development
� Identify both points of attention and good practices
� Create platform for benchlearning
� Ultimate goal:
� raise level of road safety in our society in a sustainable
way and reduce the number of road casualties
Tool objectives
25
Procedure
� Implementation
� Standardized (web based) questionnaires
� Context
� Modules
� Independent assessment by stakeholders
� Official
� Politician
� Local police force
� Consensus meeting
� Feedback meeting
26
Pilot case
Organization Road Safety Analysis
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
a 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 0
b 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 4
c 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 4
d 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 4
e 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3
f 2 3 3 0 3 4 2 3
g 4 4 3 2 4 1 3 2
h 2 3 1 3 4 3 3
i 3 4 4 3 4 3 4
j 0 3 2 4 2 4 3
k 4 3 3 4 4 3 4
l 2 2 2 4 2 4 4
m 3 2 3 2 3
n 3 3 3
o 4 3 3
p 3 4 2
q 3 3 3
r 2 2
s 2
t 3
u 2
v 2
AVG 3,29 3 3,08 2,45 3,12 2,89 3 3 3,25
27
Conclusion
� Output
� Visual representation of levels of development
� Policy advice
� Facilitate continuous improvement
� Create breeding ground for discussion
� Reveal points of attention
� Recognition of good examples and good practices
� Create medium for interaction and communication
� No scores/judgments/comparisons… but motivation!
� Tool can never be a goal as such!