STAYSAFE  53

  

 

TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY IN THE VICINITY OF SCHOOLS

 

 

 

PART 1: MAJOR

RECOMMENDATIONS

AND SUMMARY

 

 

ISBN 0 7313 5113 4

ISSN 0811-4005

Report 6/52                                                                            July 2001

 

CONTENTS

 

 

 

Members of the Committee       ………………………………………………………            5

  Important note              ………………………………………………………………            7

 Chairman’s foreword          ….……………………………………………………….            9

 Recommendations        ………………………………………………………………            13

 Executive summary

            Introduction      ………………………………………………………………            29

            The terms of reference of the inquiry        ………………..……………………            29

            The conduct of the inquiry         ………………………………………………            31

            Some principles of traffic control and safety around schools                   ………            32

            Local communities and the road transport system - the critical

                        role of local traffic committees   ………………………………            33

            Community education about road safety around schools            ………………            35

            Safer Routes to School Program           ………………………………………            36

            Road Safety Officer Program    ………………………………………………            37

            Black Spot Funding Program    ………………………………………………            37

            School precinct management systems    ………………………………………            37

            Agency-specific issues and responsibilities

                        Roads and Traffic Authority      ………………………………………            38

                        Department of Education          ………………………………………            40

                        Department of Urban Affairs and Planning         ………………………            41

                        Department of Transport           ………………………………………            42

                        New South Wales Police Service          ………………………………            43

                        Local government         ………………………………………………            45

            Concluding comments   ………………………………………………            46

 

 

Table of agency responsibilities for the implementation of

            the recommendations                ………………………………………………            47

 

MEMBERS OF THE STAYSAFE

                                COMMITTEE

 

 

Mr Grant McBride, M.P. (Chairman), Member for The Entrance

 

The Hon. Ian West, M.L.C. (Vice Chairman)

 

Mr John Bartlett, M.P., Member for Port Stephens

 

Mr David Campbell, M.P., Member for Keira

 

Mr Kevin Greene, M.P., Member for Georges River

 

The Hon. John Jobling, M.L.C., Opposition Whip

 

Mr Russell Smith, M.P., Opposition Whip and Member for Bega

 

Mr Andrew Stoner, M.P., Member for Oxley

 

The Hon. John Tingle, M.L.C.

 

Staff of the STAYSAFE Committee

 

Director                                                Mr Ian Faulks

 

Committee Officer                                Ms Violeta Brdaroska

 

Assistant Committee Officer                  Mr Carolyne Allen

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTE

 

During the course of this inquiry STAYSAFE has received several hundred submissions from schools and school communities describing the specific issues affecting individual schools, and in some cases, individual families or individual school children.

 

STAYSAFE has used the information in each submission as elements contributing to a collective or general view of the issues and problems in traffic control and safety that are faced by schools within a neighbourhood, and by school children during their travel to and from home and school. 

 

STAYSAFE has not, and is not, in a position to provide particular assistance to resolve issues and problems facing individual schools and school communities. 

 

However, as part of the reporting of this inquiry, the full transcripts of evidence of all witnesses who appeared before STAYSAFE will be reported, together with summaries of all of the submissions that have been received by STAYSAFE.  This information will be placed on the public record, and will be available to relevant Government agencies such as the Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Education, and the Department of Transport, as well as to local councils and the schools and school communities themselves.

 

In addition, the Carr Labor Government has committed to conducting an audit of the traffic facilities outside all schools in New South Wales, and STAYSAFE will take particular action to ensure that the information contained in each and every one of the submissions received during this inquiry will be made available to assist in this audit process.

 

The STAYSAFE Committee

 

CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD

 

 

Grant McBride MP, Member for The Entrance

Chairman, STAYSAFE

Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety

 

 

School communities across New South Wales have been concerned about road safety issues in and around schools for some time.  The issues of concern are typically perceived as risks or hazards to which children are exposed.  School children are among of the most vulnerable of road users.  The specific characteristics which make school children in need of particular attention are: their age and cognitive immaturity (especially in children younger than 10 years of age); their lack of experience as independent users of the road safety system; and the frequency of their use of the road as passengers or pedestrians, particularly for travel to and from school.  STAYSAFE has heard testimony that in some local council traffic committees almost half of the traffic management and control issues that are raised relate to school travel safety issues.  For example:

“About 25% of the issues that come before the Wagga Wagga local traffic committee relate to school safety. We researched just the points of the agendas for about four years and came up with this figure. When you take out of those figures or those agenda items issues that are not related to safety because the traffic committee deals with other administrative issues on its agenda, it could be that as high as 40% of road safety issues in this community relate to schools. That is a very high figure and it has been like that for 15 or 20 years that I have been working here. The community that see this issue would be represented by parents, the parents and citizens, the principals, the motorists, the councillors, the taxi drivers, the bus drivers and almost all facets of the community that have anything to do with schools. They see the issue as unsatisfactory and keep asking the council to participate in solutions.” 

(Mr Gary Gaffney, Civil Engineer and Manager, Wagga Wagga City Council, extract from the Minutes of Evidence taken at Wagga Wagga,12 February 2001, p.2)

 

The tragic death of Ella James and very serious injury to Corrine Fielitz outside Bulli Public School in mid-2000 acted as a flashpoint for the outpouring of this long 'low boiling' concern.  STAYSAFE Members determined from the reactions in their own communities that only the independence of a STAYSAFE inquiry would satisfy our communities.

 

With the commencement of this inquiry, the STAYSAFE Committee confirmed its previous finding that road trauma and risk involving children has high consequences not only for the individuals involved, but also for local communities and schools.  STAYSAFE maintains that the safety of children on their way to and from school should always be a first priority for decision makers and agencies with responsibilities to manage the road transport system.

 

Local government is integral to the development of local solutions to the local problems faced by school communities within the road transport system.  In the main, local councils are the first point of contact by the community when attempting to deal with road safety and traffic management issues associated with schools.

 

During the course of this inquiry, STAYSAFE visited and heard evidence from a large number of schools across New South Wales.  The Committee gained first hand knowledge of particular road safety issues as they affected individual schools and local communities.  The purpose of this form of inquiry is to gather information about the generic issues which affect schools across New South Wales, with view of developing policies and recommendations for their implementation.  Although it is sensitive to the individual road safety problems heard in evidence from schools and communities, some of which are still outstanding, STAYSAFE did not seek nor does it have a mandate to investigate or resolve individual road safety concerns.  STAYSAFE hopes that the policy proposals and recommendations that arise out of this inquiry would establish more favourable grounds for a more effective resolution of the road safety concerns of individual schools.

 

In this first report of the inquiry, STAYSAFE presents its major recommendations and a brief summary of its findings.

 

Thirty three major recommendations are made in this report.  A considerable number of further, more specific recommendations will be made in a full technical report to follow.

 

Several reports arising from the inquiry into traffic control and safety around schools are to be released as sequential parts under one STAYSAFE report number (i.e., STAYSAFE 53), but each report will be listed in Parliamentary records as individual papers.  The intention of STAYSAFE is that:

·        STAYSAFE 53 - Part 1 (major recommendations and summary) will be the primary document for public consideration; and

·        STAYSAFE 53 - Part 2 (the full report with all findings and recommendations) is for interested technical specialists and those people with a strong interest in the issues; while

·        STAYSAFE 53 - Part 3 (edited transcripts of evidence of witnesses);  and

·        STAYSAFE 53 - Part 4 (a summary of all submissions received) will provide general public access to the detailed information about traffic control and safety around schools that is available to STAYSAFE, and serve as a means by which STAYSAFE can publicly acknowledge the work done by schools and school communities throughout New South Wales to address their safety concerns.

When tabled, these several reports arising from the inquiry into traffic control and safety around schools will be placed on Parliament’s Internet site, and thus be easily available at minimal cost to anyone in New South Wales, as well as nationally and internationally.

 

Full listings of the submissions received by STAYSAFE, and of the witnesses who gave evidence at public hearings before STAYSAFE, will be published in STAYSAFE 53 - Part 2 (the full report with all findings and recommendations).

 

 

Acknowledgments

 

I wish to record my deep gratitude to the work performed by my colleagues on the STAYSAFE Committee.  During the course of this inquiry – one of the most extensive conducted by STAYSAFE since its inception two decades ago – my fellow STAYSAFE Members have made themselves available for meetings and briefings, school inspections, and public hearings over some seventeen days, spanning New South Wales from the Tweed in the north, to the Bega Valley in the south, and west through Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and Armidale, as well as in the Hunter, the Central Coast, and the Illawarra, and the regions comprising metropolitan Sydney.

 

I thank also the efforts made by Parliamentary staff during this inquiry – the STAYSAFE Committee staff, headed by Mr Ian Faulks, together with Ms Violeta Brdaroska and Ms Carolyne Allen, the Hansard recording staff, and the staff of the Printing section.

 

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

1.  Local Council Traffic Committees

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.1:

The Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Education and the Local Government and Shires Associations develop specific protocols for dealing with school safety matters which will define the relationship between school communities and members of the local traffic committees. (Para. 20, p. 23)

 

“…the current Roads and Traffic Authority policy needs to be, once again, global best practice solutions, I feel.  Local government actually does not have a manual of best practice solutions for schools. They have them for local area traffic management schemes but specifically for schools there is nothing. …”

(Mr David Steller, Principal Engineer, Armidale‑Dumaresq Council, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Armidale, 14 February 2001. p.6. [bold emphases added])

 

“…Another issue that is of interest is the role and function of local traffic committees. I think it is fair to say that from a school perspective there has been a degree of uncertainty and lack of clarity around some of the roles and responsibilities of local traffic committees and the respective roles of the Roads and Traffic Authority, council and other bodies… I think it is important that we start to help schools understand some of those issues. What we do is outline the application processes and roles and the respective responsibilities of agencies involved in traffic management. I think that would be a great help to schools, who at the moment do not really have that clear guidance and assistance.  These guidelines would highlight the key aspects of the Roads and Traffic Authority's proposed guidelines for schools… We would also advise schools about the assistance that the Department of Education and Training and the various arms of the Department can provide to them regarding improving the communication between agencies…It would generally outline the processes and make sure that we are able to assist schools in expediting things and finding their way through the processes. I believe also that we should be working with other agencies to simplify the process in the first place…”

(Mr John Burkhardt, General Manager (Properties), Department of Education and Training, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, pp.6-7. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.2:

The Roads and Traffic Authority should establish a databank to track the recommendations of local traffic committees concerning schools and school safety. (Para. 22, p. 23)

 

“In terms of actions that we have noted by council, undertakings have been given but not always forthcoming. An example of that is that we were advised by letter that a roundabout would be installed. The mayor wrote to us confirming installation, but that was never forthcoming. When I queried that at a later stage, I was told, understandably, that roundabouts can be dangerous for children because they tend to run to that point of the road. However, we were never advised of a recall of that decision and the roundabout was never installed.”

(Ms Loraine Sperling, on behalf of Emanuel School, Randwick, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p.3. [bold emphases added])

RECOMMENDATION 1.3: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority should establish an appeal mechanism for the review of the recommendations of local traffic committees in the form of a regional tribunal with representatives from relevant stakeholders. (Para. 23, p. 24)

 

“…I think an appeal mechanism needs to be set up through the Roads and Traffic Authority, so that someone from a technical area of the Roads and Traffic Authority can come and actually look at the issue, talk to the community about it and justify why they are rigid in their interpretation of the rules….Maybe a representative from the Roads and Traffic Authority or a government department facilitates that community discussion about why it was refused and why other solutions are available and here is what the community has to say about the decision…. the regional traffic committee probably is not an appropriate forum. It probably should be a new forum, and there needs to be a facilitator to bring the parties together to discuss the issue. If it does not meet the warrant, then what can we do about changing the warrant?…”

(Mr David Steller, Principal Engineer, Armidale‑Dumaresq Council, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Armidale, 14 February 2001, p.6. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.4:

That individual school communities may appeal the decision of a local traffic committee to the regional appeals tribunal. (Para. 24, p. 24)

 

“Certainly one area that has come to our attention from school communities is the appeals process. As I understand it…the school community has no opportunity to appeal on a traffic committee decision. I think that is where the frustration lies. I understand the only opportunity after they have written to councils and their request has been denied is to go back through the local member, who has representation on the traffic committee.”

(Ms Maureen Elliott, Manager (School and Youth Programs), Roads and Traffic Authority, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.22. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.5:

The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with the Department of Education and the other school sectors, as appropriate, should ensure that a representative of schools and/or school communities is a member of the local government traffic committee and is appointed by the local council. (Para. 25, p. 24)

 

“…Possibly a more formal structure in which schools, or the Department, had a permanent place on the committee or a position within the committee that it could take up at any point. There may need to be a formal process under which the committee can meet with us, and for that meeting to be registered and acknowledged as opposed to other community or interest groups. Clearly we represent a large number of people in our community and we all agree that the safety of young people and children should be paramount. I am an advocate of a more formal structure in which education is involved. School principals, or representatives of the school community, could make some formal representation before local traffic committees and there would be a requirement for the committee to acknowledge and report formally as to any decision taken.”

(Mr Robert Lavender, Principal, Illaroo Road Public School, extract from Minutes of Evidence taken at Nowra, 13 December 2000, p. 14. [bold emphases added])

 

 

2.  Community education about road safety around schools

 

RECOMMENDATION 2.1: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, develop information packs which:

   (a)     explain the work and structure of the local traffic committees, and the process followed by a local traffic committee in deciding on matters of road safety and traffic control around schools;

   (b)     provide information on how to make applications for development of traffic facilities, and strategies for the education of school communities in relation to achieving safer environments around schools; and

(c)          explain the work of road safety officers, and the need for school communities to rely on road safety officers for advice on preparing submissions for the local traffic committee and other agencies. (Para. 26, p. 25)

 

“… I was never supplied with any documented standards that would lay out policy to allow the school to address (an) issue. I was only ever given funding as the main criteria for inhibiting the installation of any excessive works. In fact, … I was given to believe that the school would need to be forthcoming with the funds. We never progressed past that point.”

(Ms Loraine Sperling, on behalf of Emanuel School, Randwick, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p.6-7. [bold emphases added])

 

“Also the fact that it appears that you can only have one attempt to obtain information and it is up to the Roads and Traffic Authority.  I would like to reiterate that we have felt all along that the Roads and Traffic Authority is a bit of a closed shop and it does appear to have a power unto itself and it does appear to have its own policies that are not public, or maybe they are not written policies, we are not quite sure of its modus operandi.  We would like it to have a much more open door.” 

(Mr Steve James, father of Ella James, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 9 April 2001,  p. 4 [bold emphases added])

 ecks and balances through the process…”

(Mr John Burkhardt, General Manager (Properties), Department of Education and Training, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney 27 April 2001, p. 15. [bold emphases added])

 

3.  Safer Routes to School Program

 

RECOMMENDATION 3.1:

The Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program be continued, enhanced and expanded to all infants and primary schools in New South Wales. (Para. 27, p. 25)

 

“In regard to this, the Safer Routes to School Program is a Roads and Traffic Authority initiative that is currently winding down.  This council sees that as being a disadvantage to the community.  We seek that there should be continued support of those and continued liaison with the Roads and Traffic Authority with participating schools and road safety stakeholders.  Also the Safety Outside Schools program, another program well supported by council that we believe should continue, if not be enhanced.”

(Cr Christopher Holstein, Mayor, Gosford City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Gosford, 26 March 2001, p. 9. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 3.2: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program is made available to secondary schools in New South Wales. (Para. 27 p. 26)

 

“…from an educator's perspective I would like to comment that the Safer Routes to School program is an excellent program. It has made a lot of school communities and parents and carers and councils aware of a lot of road safety issues associated with schools…”

(Ms Kristine Long, Road Safety Officer, Dubbo City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Dubbo, 13 February 2001, p.3. [bold emphases added])

  

4.  Road Safety Officer Program

 

RECOMMENDATION 4.1: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, ensure that the road safety officer program is available to all councils in New South Wales, with the expansion of the program based on Federal, State, and local government  funding contributions. (Para. 28, p. 26)

 

“Our road safety officer goes to most of all the schools we have got in the Penrith area and finds out exactly what the parents want to see. That addresses mainly behavioural issues but also talks about the engineering aspects as well. The road safety officer then brings those issues to council and we resolve the issues and then talk to the Roads and Traffic Authority. The road safety officer is the main conduit of resolving those issues.”

(Mr Charles Wiafe, Transportation Planner, Penrith City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p.32. [bold emphases added])

 

5.  Black Spot Funding Program

 

RECOMMENDATION 5.1 

That a black spot funding program be established, funded by Federal, State and local government, to accelerate urgent works around schools. (Para. 29, p. 26)

 

“… The second point is levels of dedicated funding to address engineering problems identified by the Safer Routes to School program. For several years now the Bega Valley Road Safety Group has sought and obtained funding and sponsorship from local campaigns to improve road safety around local schools.”

(Mr Phillip Astbury, Road Safety Officer and Executive Officer of the Road Safety Group, Bega Valley Shire Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Bega, 14 December 2000, p.8. [bold emphases added])

 

“The proposal that the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia has put forward is to seek establishment of a government-administered grants program that is specifically designed to treat road safety deficiencies around schools. The program could provide opportunities to assist local communities to fund projects and to address the exposure of vehicle/pedestrian conflict in the vicinity of schools. This could be done by the implementation of traffic-calming measures, pedestrian and bus facilities and traffic management devices. We are aware that there are a number of other programs that are in place but, sadly, some of these just do not address the needs that exist currently.”

(Mr Phillip Buchan, on behalf of the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.44. [bold emphases added])

 

 

6.  School precinct management systems to promote safer traffic and pedestrian movements around schools

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.1: 

Management systems must include "whole of school" day speed restrictions at all schools across New South Wales. (Para. 30, p. 27)

 

“One of the things that could be pertinent to just about anywhere is a speed zone. The speed zone when adhered to is extremely good for schools. It would be easier for all motorists concerned if the zone was all day because children have to use cross all roads near schools at all times during the day, not just before and after school. It is not such an onerous situation if motorists are aware that they have to reduce their speed to 40 km/h for the whole day of a school week.”

(Mr Robert Smith,  Teacher, Batemans Bay Public School,  extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Bega, 14 December 2000 p. 19. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.2: 

Management systems must include colour coding of school precincts at all schools across New South Wales. (Para. 30, p. 27)

 

“… the large fluoro-orange-yellow 40kms that are painted on the road surface are ideal, provided they are bright and not worn, because I can only say to motorists they have entered a school zone and they have missed the sign if they have physically driven over the top of the speed marking. It is pretty hard to deny the fact if they have driven over it. I am very supportive of painting the 40 on the road surface.”

(Sergeant William Darnell, New South Wales Police Service representative on the Tweed Shire Council Traffic Committee, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Murwillumbah, 15 February 2001, p.6. [bold emphases added])

 

“…It was discussed internally in the council amongst the engineering division and it was decided that it was worth coming up with some method to highlight or further make pedestrian crossings stand out, so we decided to give it a trial…They have proved very successful and popular. We are getting requests from the local community to upgrade every crossing that we have got to have the orangey‑red background.”

(Mr Paul Morgan, Traffic and Transport Engineer, Tweed Shire Council Traffic Committee, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Murwillumbah, 15 February 2001, p.7. [bold emphases added])

 

“…I do not know whether the Committee has considered any specific road markings, different symbols, such as zigzags that are used in front of some pedestrian crossings. Bus lanes are painted red so that you know it is a bus lane. Is there some opportunity to have specific marking for school zones that highlights for the motorist that it is a school zone? Then if you breach it, bad luck.”

(Chief Superintendent Ron Sorrenson, Commander (Traffic Services), New South Wales Police Service, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, pp. 3-4. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.3: 

Management systems must include 40 km/h speed restrictions to be applied to roads on all accessible school property boundaries at all schools across New South Wales. (Para. 30, p. 27)

 

“…40 km/h zones surrounding schools incorporating flashing lights to make them more visible to motorists is another point I would like to stress.”

Mr Steve James, father of Ella James, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 9 April 2001, p.1. [bold emphases added])

 

“…The original guidelines of the Roads and Traffic Authority for 40 km/h speed limits were such that on multilane arterial roads there were to be no 40 km/h speed limits because of concerns about enforcement and the observance of them. We have since retreated from that with the widespread use of the 40 km/h speed limits. They are now well-known in New South Wales and it is now our policy to provide them on all roads…”

(Mr John Brewer, General Manager (Road Safety Strategy), Roads and Traffic Authority, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.16. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.4: 

Management systems must include implementation of 'whole of school precinct' traffic solutions. (Para. 30, p. 27)

 

“… I believe the guidelines may need to look at precincts in respect of school zones. I believe they have generally been in road frontages to schools. Sometimes they encompass around a corner, but there may be a need to go a little bit further if we want to provide a low speed environment around a school environment. All children do not necessarily cross at the front road or travel to and from the front road frontage. They can go around the corners and use other side streets. I think they may need to just expand a bit to cover those areas…”

(Mr Denis Valantine, Traffic Engineer, Dubbo City Council, extract of Minutes if Evidence taken at Dubbo, 13 February 2001, p.2. [bold emphases added])

 

Mr STONER (STAYSAFE): “Do you think part of the problem is that the authorities regard the school precinct as being at the end of your private road whereas your school community regards it as being at the intersection with Macquarie Grove Road?”

Mrs DIXON:  “I think that could well be the concept. It has had a long history there. You have people on the council who have been there for a long time. They probably still think that it is like it used to be. The point I was trying to make is that some of these places change. Their population increases. Not only that, you have impinging growth all around, so what it used to be 5 or 10 years ago is not what it is now.”

(Ms Suzanne Dixon, Principal, Mater Dei School, Camden, extract of Minutes of Evidence be taken at Sydney, 27 November 2001, pp.25-26 [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.5: 

Management systems must include implementation of traffic solutions, where appropriate, based on clusters of school precincts. (Para. 31, p. 27)

 

“…We feel that the situation we have where there are three large high schools all very close together, all served by the same bus routes and the same bus companies and, in fact, all bounded by the same roads, provides what we would think would be a unique situation and we would like to draw to the attention of the STAYSAFE Committee some of the problems that we feel to be unique. They basically revolve around two problems: traffic congestion and pedestrian movement…”

(Mr William Rogers, Principal, Wagga Wagga High School, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wagga Wagga, 12 February 2001, p.37. [bold emphases added])

 

 “…the issues that we have relate to the fact that we are a K‑12 school with some 500 students on one side of The Boulevarde and 1,000 students on the other side of The Boulevarde. We are in an area of medium to high density. We have a number of schools within the area and we have consistently, for a number of years, had to deal with the situation of increasing utilisation of the streets around the school because of the range of activities that happen within the Strathfield region and its locale so close to Strathfield station.

(Sr Judith Lawson, Principal, Santa Sabina College, Strathfield, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p. 34. [bold emphases added]) 

 

Ms O’SHEA:  “It is not only in the area surrounding the school; it is in areas where school students congregate where there are traffic difficulties. Strathfield railway is a classic example of that because that is the meeting point of three councils on one side, and I think there are 14 or 15 schools that use that area.

Mr McBRIDE (CHAIRMAN):  “It is looking like you have the worst possible situation in the State at the moment with three councils and 15 schools…two different police zones, different traffic enforcement groups and what have you.” (Ms Margaret O’Shea, Teacher, Santa Sabina College, Strathfield, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p.39.  [bold emphases added])

 

 

Agency-specific issues and responsibilities

 

The remaining recommendations relate to the involvement of agencies in dealing with issues identified in the inquiry into traffic control and safety around schools, and highlight the responsibilities of individual agencies.  The principal agencies identified are:

    •       Roads and Traffic Authority

    •       Department of Education

    •       Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

    •       Department of Transport

    •       New South Wales Police Service

    •       Local government

 

 

7.  Roads and Traffic Authority

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.1: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority is the lead agency for the development of policy and the design of traffic facilities. (Para. 32, p. 28)

 

“…Councils have local traffic committees, but really the ability for them to do anything is driven by the Roads and Traffic Authority. We would regard the Roads and Traffic Authority as having the leadership role as the lead agency, even though the local traffic committees meet and discuss those matters. Really there is not an overall lead agency. Because of the impact that the Roads and Traffic Authority has on decisions, how it issues grants and develops projects, it should be the lead agency…”

(Mr Darryl Mellish, Executive Director, Bus and Coach Association, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.57. [bold emphases added])

 

“I think the problem is there is no one body that anyone can talk to or ask ‘Can they have a look at this issue’. We are not the experts in traffic control, but when Kate and I were standing on the side of the road with the Roads and Traffic Authority they were saying, ‘Where do you want the bridge’?  We said, ‘You are the experts’.  I think that is where we need to have a body that can say, ‘We are responsible for safety’, that is the overriding thing we need in this area.” 

(Mr Wayne Roberts, Principal, Miranda Public School, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000,  p. 56. [bold emphases added])

 

Mr BREWER:  “…The Roads and Traffic Authority accepts a lead agency role, and the Roads and Traffic Authority needs to work with the other accountable agencies. We do that frequently in many fields …”

Mr McBRIDE (CHAIRMAN):  “….  My comment on what Mr Brewer has said is that it is the first time that we have actually heard anyone say that they are the lead agency in terms of road safety issues around schools. We have met with people informally from the Roads and Traffic Authority and we have met with all the other different groups that are stakeholders in the issue as well as with the parents and school communities, etc..  In all those meetings and hearings that we have had, it has never been clear to anyone what you have just said, that is, that the Roads and Traffic Authority is the lead agency.”

(Mr John Brewer, General Manager (Road Safety Strategy), Roads and Traffic Authority,extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.11. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.2: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority must be confirmed as the lead agency in the provision of training and information for road safety and traffic control facilities associated with schools. (Para. 33, p. 28)

 

“…the Roads and Traffic Authority is developing a booklet to assist schools to better understand the process for seeking assistance.  One of our particular items in this document will need to describe the local traffic committees, their functions, their structure, their responsibilities and accountabilities, and ways in which matters can be brought to attention.  The document will go wider than that, but the comments that you are making are accepted. The community does not understand fully the local traffic committee process. We will be trying to clarify that for the community…. It will be written in language which lay people will be able to understand and relate to, and it is intended as a layperson's guide to the issue of safety around schools and the relationship with traffic committees.” 

(Mr John Brewer, General Manager (Road Safety Strategy), Roads and Traffic Authority, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.8. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.3:

The criteria used in the warrant system in the guidelines for provision or upgrading of traffic control facilities needs to be reweighted from a sole reliance on historical crash data to risk management, including hazard identification and assessment, and the recording of near miss incidents. (Para. 35, p. 28)

 

“…The Roads and Traffic Authority must visit school sites as part of this process and should be prepared to balance their statistical information with local knowledge before making decisions based solely on criteria or current guidelines…”

(Mr Steve James, father of Ella James, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 9 April 2001, p. 2 [bold emphases added])

 

“…what happens with accidents is that there is a cost-benefit analysis done, ... and the higher the accident rate and particularly if a fatal accident happens, then that erases the actual value in assessing the worthiness of the project. Because it is in an ordinary 60‑kilometre zone we are only getting motor vehicle damage accidents which do not rate or do not cost very much to repair, so we are not getting identified as a black spot. As such, then, we do not get a high rating when it goes to the RTA for recognition… but, unfortunately, the cost-benefit analysis does not warrant it¾that if we do not do something here, then perhaps a more serious incident may happen at the high school or primary schools, but because this intersection is divorced from the high schools, it will not identify that as being an intersection to be upgraded….”

(Mr William Moffat, Civil Engineer, Grafton City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Grafton, 16 February 2001, p. 8. [bold emphases added])

 

“…The cry that we get from the community ... when a project is put on hold waiting for funds is that the community says, "Do we need to wait for somebody to get injured or to actually die?" Unfortunately, though, sometimes this is the truth. We are seen to be reactionary rather than being proactive in our approach to rectifying risks that exist around schools. Our objective is to look at things in a different way—perhaps a process that may examine the exposure to risk and possible consequences of risks that can be identified. We may combine that with  traditional hazard assessment processes through road safety audits and through technical engineering assessments and I am sure that we would be able to identify effective countermeasures and implement those…”

(Mr Phillip Buchan, Institute for Public Works Engineering Australia, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 14 May 2001, p. 43. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.4: 

The Roads and Traffic Authority must take specific action to ensure that all relevant traffic guidelines associated with traffic control around schools are updated, confirmed, published and given widespread distribution (including availability on the Internet at the Roads and Traffic Authority's website). (Para. 36, p. 29)

 

“I am not aware of the current guidelines, but in the past the Roads and Traffic Authority—it may then have been the Traffic Authority of New South Wales—developed some guidelines for schools specifically relating to safety provisions and traffic provisions around schools. Those were not implemented by the department….The present guidelines for traffic facilities relate only to school crossings rather than all the facilities that might be provided around a school in a comprehensive way. There is a section that covers parking, another that covers school crossings and another that controls refuges and so on. There is not a comprehensive document that relates to what you should do at schools because obviously schools are different to other locations… it does not deal with the bigger picture of schools and surroundings.”

(Mr Peter Sylvester, Infrastructure Development Manager, Newcastle City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Newcastle, 22 March 2001. pp.2 –3. [bold emphases added])

 

 

8.  Department of Education

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.1:

 The Department of Education must be confirmed as the lead agency for providing road safety and traffic control facilities within public school sites. (Para. 37, p. 29)

 

“There are a number of key stakeholders and clearly the Department of Education and Training is a key stakeholder, it being the reason for the development in the first place, and experience to date would give me the impression that it is there for the provision of education, education facilities, not traffic facilities, and that has shifted a lot of the responsibility back to the RTA and to councils and away from the developer.”

(Mr Edwin Collins, Traffic and Road Safety Co‑ordinator, Chair of the Traffic Committee, Wollongong City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 9 April 2001, p.14. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.2: 

The Department of Education should, on greenfield sites, provide traffic facilities on-site, and with separation of traffic function. (Para. 38, p. 29)

 

 “When school sites are designated on plans… I believe that perhaps more consideration should be given at that stage to things such as… footpaths, positioning them on the DA to the nearest safety crossing so that they are not something that is coming up later and creating hazards.”

(Cr Joan Vinton, Shellharbour City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Wollongong, 9 April 2001, p.20. [bold emphases added])

 

“…There is room for us to work on new sites, and the redevelopment and upgrading of our schools with other people as early as possible to ensure that we address traffic problems. That is the direction we have been headed in recent times. We can certainly improve bus bays, lay-bys and kiss-and-ride zones around schools. We should look to do that, where it is possible, in consultation with local councils as part of our joint funding program….”

(Mr John Burkhardt, General Manager (Properties), Department of Education and Training, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.20. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.3: 

The Department of Education  should, on brownfield sites

(a)         where retrofitting, provide on-site traffic control solutions where possible; and

 

“Separation of the traffic modes in school areas is a must. Buses, cars and pedestrians do not mix very well. You have lots of conflicts there. By separating out one stream, you must more than halve the conflicts. Retrofitting bus zones into school properties is a major initiative that could be easily undertaken by the Department of Education to achieve that outcome.”

(Mr David Steller, Principal Engineer, Armidale‑Dumaresq Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Armidale, 14 February 2001. p.7. [bold emphases added])

 

(b)         where there is additional or changing site use, install traffic facilities in sequence with the changed usage (e.g., schools being re-developed under the collegiate high schools concept). (Para. 39, p. 30)

 

“…Dubbo South High School … will become a [Years] 7 to 9 campus, and Delroy High School … in West Dubbo will become a [Years] 7 to 9 campus of that one school… that raises some significant issues in terms of the areas from town which students will be travelling from in order to attend those various campuses. The current situation…is that we have three [Years] 7 to 12 comprehensive high schools, and kids are essentially zoned and go to their local school… with those new arrangements and all students in years 11 and 12 going to a single campus, they will, of course, travel from across the town to go to that campus and from the outlying areas as well. That is something which we have been planning and discussing and working on for quite some time, and certainly the safety of students as users of the road and on their journeys to and from school is of interest and importance to the schools, and we do try to work locally to address local issues.”

(Ms Ann‑Marie Furney, Principal, Dubbo South High School, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Dubbo, 13 February 2001, p.9. [bold emphases added])

 

Mr McBRIDE (CHAIRMAN):  “Waratah High School is becoming a part of the collegiate system, and as such the department is changing the nature of the school so that instead of being a local comprehensive school students are now coming from all over the place…”

Mr FIELDING:  “… it is therefore incumbent on the Department of Education to look again at what impacts are likely to occur and then sit down with the council to work out jointly how to accommodate those impacts so that the school can operate safely and effectively, but also so that the local community does not feel put upon by the change to that school…. it has to be a co-operative arrangement between the department of education and the local council…”

(Mr Garry Fielding,, Executive Director – Planning System, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.37. [bold emphases added])

RECOMMENDATION 8.4: 

The Department of Education transfer new and any current road safety responsibilities regarding traffic facilities around schools from road safety education curriculum advisers to the Department of Education’s Properties area. (Para. 40, p. 30)

 

“…we have a strong curriculum-based program. I have eight field officers who work across the State. When issues relating to traffic management or issues outside the schools have been brought to the attention of consultants while working with the school in the development of the program, those consultants have facilitated communication with the relevant agency to try to resolve those issues… The other aspect that consultants look at in supporting schools that I think is critical to the installation of any traffic management facility is school management practices that enhance and support the safety facilities outside the school…There has been some support in that area, although we acknowledge that a range of interagency support and experts are required when it comes to the installation of complex traffic management facilities and the movement of children..… our officers are not traffic engineers; they are teachers.” 

(Ms Gail Bruton, Program Manager, Road Safety Education, Curriculum Support Directorate, Department of Education and Training, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.25. [bold emphases added])

 

 

9.  Department of Urban Affairs and Planning

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.1: 

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning introduce guidelines (or regulations) to compel the Department of Education to provide traffic facilities associated with its site services, as are all other service providers. (Para. 43, p. 31)

 

Mr SMITH (STAYSAFZE): “During the committee hearings we have heard about the contradictory attitudes of the Department of Education and Training, and also the Department of Public Works…[to take part in more than just the design of new schools but also traffic flow, drop-off points and bus areas around the school site]…”

Mr SHARPE: “I think the answer to this lies in the manner in which development applications are dealt with. Perhaps an example would be the Bodalla Public School and the process that has occurred there. In that case, we had a new school sited and very limited traffic information provided with a development application. The original application had scant detail on the way that traffic was going to be managed in and around the school. That issue was put through the traffic committee, and the traffic committee came up with a range of recommendations to improve that situation. Those conditions were consensually resolved, the matter was put to the department and rejected, and our consent was then issued without those conditions. That basically meant that it fell upon myself and the other engineering staff to go in and bat to negotiate what we believed was a better outcome for the school and our community….”

(Mr Warren Sharpe, Works Manager, Eurobodalla Shire Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Bega, 14 December 2000, p.30. [bold emphases added])

 

“We certainly undertake traffic studies, and we need to start talking with councils, the Roads and Traffic Authority and other agencies as early as possible in the process so that we are not presenting something that we think is the best as a result of the traffic study. There is room for us to work on new sites, and the redevelopment and upgrading of our schools with other people as early as possible to ensure that we address traffic problems…”

(Mr John Burkhardt, General Manager of Properties, Department of Education and Training, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney 27 April 2001, p.20. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.2: 

That the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning produce 'practice notes' for the use of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act s.94 contributions in relation to the provision of traffic facilities around schools

(given that 50% of existing schools were built before 1950). (Para. 43, p. 31)

 

Mr CAMPBELL (STAYSAFE): “The Committee visited Illaroo Road School in Nowra. The school had been there for 40 years and there had been subsequent development further out from the school. I put to them that they should have been collecting section 94 contributions from the subsequent subdivisions,  to provide traffic facilities at the school. The school representatives said they did not believe that they could do that…. What mechanisms are there for the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to highlight that with councils?”

Mr FIELDING: “I agree with you that if it were included in a section 94 contributions plan and a clear nexus were established between the proposed housing development, giving rise to the need for some improved traffic management devices around the school, clearly that can be included in the contributions plan…. In the main, the means by which we have tried to guide councils has been through documents such as this section 94 contributions plan manual. However…it does not talk about specific examples of schools. There is no doubt… that if the Committee were of the view that this needed to be amended to include that, it could occur. I think that would be the most effective way of getting that advice and guidance out to councils.” 

(Mr Garry Fielding, Executive Director-Planning System, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney 27 April 2001, p.32-33. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.3: 

That in the designation of proposed Department of Education sites: that the land area to be acquired or developed for the Department of Education must include provision for on site traffic control facilities associated with the school's operations (including student travel). (Para. 44, p. 31)

 

“…I agree with some of the comments made about the juxtaposition of lay-bys, pedestrian crossings, kiss and rides and those sorts of things. Certainly, we are very conscious that it is advisable to improve our designs where we can. We need to start as early as possible with councils and developers on design. I have certainly adopted that approach in the time I have been in this position. We need also to be much more conscious of selecting sites that enable us to optimise good traffic management…”,

(Mr John Burkhardt, General Manager (Properties), Department of Education and Training, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.20. [bold emphases added])

 

 

10.  Department of Transport

 

RECOMMENDATION 10.1: 

The Department of Transport must be confirmed as the lead agency for personal safety issues relating to student bus travel and transport interchanges (outside schools, in towns, at rural intersections, railway stations, etc.). (Para. 45, p. 32)

 

“…The Department of Transport is, I guess, the governing authority for handling school bus routes and administers the way the buses travel through a town in rural areas. They meet at one point, so somewhere along the line I think whoever is developing that congestion should have some responsibility for it, a suggestion there being a footpath supervisor administered by the Department of Transport…”

(Mr Denis Valantine, Dubbo City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Dubbo, 13 February 2001, p.3. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 10.2: 

Student set down and pick up locations associated with schools, must be included within the Department of Transport's bus service contracts. (Para. 47, p. 32)

 

“The buses are a law unto themselves. My children were dropped off outside the school door for the last three years until the bus company decided to change its route slightly to fit in with some other school route….. We are often reminded about the lack of financial viability of some of the routes and how fortunate we are to have them and questioning these things does not often yield to sympathy…. My children have to connect with a train after the bus, and they were not connecting. The bus company would not give us an extra bus. I had 40 kids for a bus. They would not do it. However, I got the train to change its timetable by four minutes to fit in. Now, I think if trains can change their timetables but a bus company cannot, there is a bit of a problem there with private bus companies.”

(Ms Kerrie Ann Moon, Carlingford High School Parents & Citizens Association, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 November 2000, p. 18. [bold emphases added])

 

“I think it is fair to say that there is no policy that says you cannot pick up on the other side of the road. However, most bus operators in the first instance would always attempt to pick up and drop off on the correct side of the road. The issue remains: Is it a safe place to stop your bus and pick someone up? Is the crossing safe? That is what is assessed. “ (Mr Colin Holmes, Director, Rail Safety, Department of Transport, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.35. [bold emphases added])

 

 

11.  New South Wales Police Service

 

RECOMMENDATION 11.1:

That traffic law compliance taskings are to be an auditable item for local area command reports. (Para. 50, p. 33)

 

“…I cannot talk about specific schools. But I would say that, if you went across the State, you would see that police go there periodically. We concentrate our times at schools when Back to School programs are being implemented. But if you go to any local area command where one or two highway cars are working, you might have 12 school zones and three or four major arterial roads with peak traffic running through them. The solution to these problems is not always enforcement. Sometimes it is…”

(Chief Superintendent Ron Sorrenson, New South Wales Police Service, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.7. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 11.2: 

That there be a review of traffic law legislation and operational instructions and policies to ensure that traffic control facilities installed around schools are enforceable by police and are enforced by police. (Para. 51, p. 34)

 

“These are inconsistencies between the State traffic laws and current traffic management policies applying in the vicinity of schools. There appears to be some conflict between the current traffic laws and traffic management policies. What creates the conflict appears to depend upon which jurisdiction one approaches. Our members advise that the most widespread comment across country and regional New South Wales is from the local police stating that it is not possible to police the 40 km/h zones around schools and school buses. We do not know whether that is because they do not have enough resources or whether it is just such a lower priority.”

(Mr Barry Macdonald, representing the Bus and Coach Association, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney,14 May 2001, p.54. [bold emphases added])

 

“Some of the types of problems that we encounter are that many of the zones are not enforceable. They are too short for us to get an accurate check on the vehicle. For us to go to court we are required to take a three-second check on the vehicle. If a vehicle comes to a 50 km/h sign it has to decelerate. If there is a crossing in the middle with a stop-and-go person who then stops the vehicle that prohibits our getting a speed check on the vehicle. The length of the zone is crucial. If it is too short we cannot get a speed enforcement. If it is too long the motorist will start to wonder whether he is in a 40 km/h zone, because it is 500 metres long. “

(Chief Superintendent Ron Sorrenson, New South Wales Police Service, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney, 27 April 2001, p.2. [bold emphases added])

 

“…we also have the problem of local police saying that they cannot enforce the speed limits because of the guidelines, with a set distance that they cannot pull people in. There is a change of speed limit and they have to have three seconds to fix on a car to get a speed and by that time they are gone.”

(Mr Richard Minter, Maitland City Council, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Newcastle, 22 March 2001, p.6. [bold emphases added])

 

 

12.  Local councils

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.1: 

That local councils to be responsible for the distribution of school road safety-related information. (Para. 54, p. 34)

 

“…Local government has a strong focus on road safety in the areas of planning, design of roads and construction… Local government is usually the first point of contact where the community makes an approach to express its concern about road safety. As we are talking about schools, the issue of road safety around schools is quite a prominent issue in most local government areas…” 

(Mr Phillip Buchan, representing the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken in Sydney, 14 May 2001, p.42. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.2:

That local councils as the planning consent authority, ensure that issues relating to road safety associated with school sites should meet the same conditions of consent as other service providers. (Para. 55, p. 34)

 

“….Even prior to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, any development by the Crown has always had to be dealt with differently to a private sector development, in that councils cannot impose conditions without that agency agreeing and without the Minister agreeing. As a result, over the years a culture has developed within councils that you have to be almost hands off with Crown development as such. But section 94 can be and should be applied to Crown agencies in the same way that it is applied to the private sector, where a need for some community facility arises as a direct result of a development been proposed…”

(Mr Garry Fielding, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney,27 April 2001, p.31. [bold emphases added])

 

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.3: 

That local council traffic committees are the 'engine room' for the resolution of school traffic facility and road safety issues. (Para. 56, p. 35)

 

“About 25% of the issues that come before the Wagga Wagga local traffic committee relate to school safety. We researched just the points of the agendas for about four years and came up with this figure. When you take out of those figures or those agenda items issues that are not related to safety because the traffic committee deal with other administrative issues on its agenda, it could be that as high as 40% of road safety issues in this community relate to schools. That is a very high figure and it has been like that for 15 or 20 years that I have been working here. The community that see this issue would be represented by parents, the parents and citizens, the principals, the motorists, the councillors, the taxi drivers, the bus drivers and almost all facets of the community that have anything to do with schools. They see the issue as unsatisfactory and keep asking the council to participate in solutions.”

(Mr Gary Gaffney, Civil Engineer and Manager, Wagga Wagga City Council, extract from the Minutes of Evidence taken at Wagga Wagga,12 February 2001, p.2. [bold emphases added])

 

“For upgrades and new works, we would assume that the local council's traffic advisory committee is the co-ordinating body of the local area…”

(Mr John Zahn, Program Manager, DET Schools, Department of Public Works and Services, extract of Minutes of Evidence taken at Sydney 27 April 2001, p.28. [bold emphases added])

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

 

Introduction

 

1.         A majority of school children are, either regularly or from time to time, exposed to road safety dangers in their travel to or from school:

    -      as pedestrians, for only short periods as they are dropped off or picked up by their parents at the school, or for travel on foot involving the entire journey to or from school and home, or pedestrian activities associated with the use of public transport such as trains or buses;

    -       as passengers in motor vehicles (cars, buses); and

    -       as bicyclists

School children may also be exposed to transport safety dangers as users of rail transport, and in more limited instances as users of other transport modalities such as ferries.

 

2.         A review of STAYSAFE's archival records indicated that school travel safety concerns were raised regularly in correspondence, but were a particular element of submissions received during STAYSAFE’s inquiry into pedestrian safety (see STAYSAFE 26, 1994; STAYSAFE 48, 1998).

 

3.         The tragic death of Ella James and very serious injury to Corrine Fielitz in a road crash on the pedestrian crossing over the Princes Highway outside Bulli Public School in mid-2000 acted as a particular flashpoint for the outpouring of this long 'low boiling' concern, and led directly to the decision by STAYSAFE to review traffic control and safety around schools across New South Wales.

 

 

The terms of reference for the inquiry

 

4.         STAYSAFE announced the terms of reference for an inquiry into the effectiveness of current traffic control strategies in the immediate vicinity of schools in New South Wales in July 2000.  The inquiry required examination and review of:

    •       the range of traffic facilities available for use in the vicinity of schools;

    •      the kinds of problems that schools may face as a result of their location within the State’s road transport system;

    •      the current guidelines and standards for traffic facilities available for use in the vicinity of schools;

    •      the adequacy of the mechanisms for review of existing traffic facilities in the vicinity of schools;

    •      the basis for the establishment of the existing criteria for traffic facilities available for use in the vicinity of schools;

    •      alternative criteria that may be applicable in determining the traffic facilities to be used in the vicinity of schools;

    •       current traffic law applicable to the road transport system in the vicinity of schools;

    •      inconsistencies between the State’s traffic laws and current traffic management policies applying in the vicinity of schools;

    •       any other relevant matters.

5.         During the course of the inquiry STAYSAFE received written submissions and verbal testimony covering a wide variety of issues regarding traffic control in the vicinity of schools.  The issues raised in submissions and testimony ranged from concerns linked to a particular local area or school, through to more generic, systematic concerns which affect most schools and communities in New South Wales.  The nature of concerns raised generally depended on the background of those who raised them, and their particular situation in the New South Wales road transport system.  Parents, schools, and school communities predominantly focused on the need for more effective implementation of a variety of proposed road safety strategies around their particular schools, while the agencies and organisations concerned with the development and implementation of such strategies, and the funding and provision of work under these strategies, raised additional issues relating to the effectiveness of current policies, regulations and guidelines which guide their work, and the ability of current resources to identify increasing needs and implement the works required. 

 

6.         Despite these different perspectives of the traffic management and road safety environment around schools, a common thread of argument arises from evidence -- the road transport system in New South Wales has changed markedly over the last two decades, with major and continuing increases in vehicle ownership, vehicle use, and community perceptions as to the dangers relating to road use.  Moreover, wider societal changes have occurred.  Educational policies and practices have changed: most school children, even from kindergarten, are required to carry large backpacks containing textbooks, workbooks, sporting clothes and equipment to and from school; pre- and after-school activities are common, both as non-parental care and as sporting and other activities; out-of-zone schooling has apparently increased following changes to the policy previously restricting attendance tom local schools only; and the organisation of school facilities is placing different, and increasing demands on school travel (e.g., the new collegiate system in high schools).  There are increasing concerns about personal safety (e.g., stranger danger), changes in the perception of what is appropriate parental supervision of children within neighbourhood environments, including local travel and the use of roads.   As a consequence,  the strategies, policies and programs to ensure safer environments around schools must be developed and coordinated to reflect these changes.

 

7.         STAYSAFE has also identified the need for viewing traffic control and safety around schools -- the management of the traffic environment and the promotion of road safety around schools --  as an intricate part of the long term planning and strategies for road trauma reduction, such as the New South Wales Road Safety 2010 strategic planning framework announced in 1999 and the National Road Safety Strategy announced in 2000.  These strategies involve delineating, and confirming or changing the relationships between many agencies, such as local governments, schools and school communities. 

 

8.         STAYSAFE believes that a new systemic approach to community road safety is required, that is not only concerned with how to provide better engineering immediately around schools, better access to transport and road safety education to school children, and enforcement of traffic rules, but also how to plan for old and new communities with comprehensive road safety and traffic strategies in place.

 

9.         The inquiry into traffic control around schools has highlighted a need to reassess the basis on which road safety strategies are created and decisions are made.  In past reports, STAYSAFE questioned the nature and viability of benchmarks for delivering improved road safety strategies (see, e.g., STAYSAFE 47, 1998; STAYSAFE 51, 2000).   STAYSAFE was concerned with how these benchmarks were established, whether they were an effective and/or progressive way of approaching road safety and are there alternative performance indicators which could provide a more reliable and comprehensive view of road safety. Throughout these reports, STAYSAFE has maintained that in order to successfully assess and address the influence of complex economic, social, technological and other changes on road safety and traffic management, we need to achieve a paradigm shift in the way we think about road safety. 

 

10.       STAYSAFE has approached the need for re-thinking of traditional approaches to road safety by assuming the notion that death to a child is not an acceptable benchmark for achieving better road safety around schools.  STAYSAFE believes that data and performance indicators which measure road trauma as a basis for allocation of road safety priorities is only one component of the research needed to establish new strategies.  A broader and more forward reaching approach to ensuring a safer environment around schools and communities must also include an assessment of risk without the necessary occurrence of road crashes.  STAYSAFE has found that, in part, the withdrawal of agencies such as the Roads and Traffic Authority and the New South Wales Police Service from more active roles in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools has occurred because of a systemic inability to deal effectively with the risk of harm associated with school travel, as opposed to the actual occurrence of road injury.

 

 

The conduct of the inquiry

 

11.       STAYSAFE's inquiry into traffic control and safety around schools has been one of the most extensive inquiries conducted in the two-decade history of the Committee:

    ·      almost 400 submissions have been received by STAYSAFE, many from school communities

    ·      17 days of public hearings and inspections have been conducted, throughout New South Wales, in metropolitan Sydney, and in a number of regional areas, including mid North Coast, Shoalhaven, South Coast, Riverina, Central West, Northern Tablelands, far North Coast, the Hunter, and the Central Coast

    ·      more than 230 witnesses have testified before STAYSAFE for this inquiry, including representatives of:

                ·      67 schools,

                ·      32 Parents & Citizens Associations, Parents & Friends Associations, or school              councils

                ·      27 local councils, including many road safety officers

                ·      12 members of Parliament

                ·      visits of inspection to 62 school sites

                ·      visits of inspection to 6 bus interchanges

It addition, STAYSAFE has received informal briefings from dozens of teachers, parents, and community representatives.

 

12.       STAYSAFE's approach to the conduct of the inquiry has adopted a 'bottom up' inquiry, talking to the community first and the founders and providers last.  This has caused some concern amongst the lead stakeholders for road safety in New South Wales, who have indicated that they feel the inquiry process should have seen the experts giving evidence first, in order to inform and guide STAYSAFE as to the essential issues in the inquiry and to avoid complications associated with taking testimony from uninformed members of the community.  As will be seen, STAYSAFE has found, however, that speaking to a wide cross-section of the community first has given insight into the nature of the problems faced in addressing traffic control and safety around schools, and the possible areas where solutions might be applied effectively.

 

 

Some principles of traffic control and safety around schools

 

13.       During its review of road safety and traffic control in the vicinity of schools, STAYSAFE has been guided by a number of principles:

    •       school safety issues are "low probability - high consequence" events

    •       local solutions need to be found for local problems

    •       solutions need to be based on a universal (generic) policy framework

    •       community ownership and involvement in solutions

 

School safety issues are "low probability - high consequence" events

14.       This principle derives directly from STAYSAFE’s view that that the safety of children when using the road transport system is paramount – particularly when the State places an obligation upon children to travel from home to attend school – and that strategies for delivering safer road environments for children should aim to ensure that there is no risk of death to a child (see, e.g., STAYSAFE 26, 1994; STAYSAFE 32, 1996). 

 

15.       In the traditional road safety approach in Australia, it is an accepted practice that implementation of policies and strategies will be constrained within budgetary restrictions – decision makers are therefore required to prioritise the implementation of strategies in order to meet budgetary requirements.  Under this approach, the primary issue of importance regarding road safety around schools is to assess the level of crash incidence, and associated road trauma, as a basis for decisions about priorities and goals to be targeted by the Roads and Traffic Authority and other agencies when deciding on road safety around schools.  Road trauma associated with school children at the times of travel to and from school is not a significant part of the annual road toll in New South Wales.  In these terms, the likelihood  of road trauma associated with school travel can be called a ‘low probability’.  However, in those events where a child has been injured or died during travel to and from school, the consequences for the individual, family and the whole community are very high.  These are not only material consequences measured in the costs of health and family support for the individuals involved;  the costs of infrastructure and development around the school to rectify the road safety problem; or the costs of student, teacher and broader community education needed to ensure safer behaviour around the school.  The consequences of unsafe school environments can also include negative community, social and environmental repercussions of situations where a lower standards of safety are maintained as the accepted norm - if unsafe road environments around schools are accepted as the norm, students attending the school or the local community are more likely to accept higher risks as a normal feature of the road transport system.

 

16.       STAYSAFE has concluded that in school environments the appropriate means of identifying, assessing and controlling the likelihood of road crashes occurring is not to continue to rely on the historical crash record as the basis for decision making about traffic control interventions, but to move to a risk management model that identifies and takes account of risky or hazardous circumstances – circumstances that may not, as yet, have given rise to a serious injury or fatal crash.  Risk management approaches are commonly used in other areas of safety and injury control (see, e.g., workplace safety or occupational health and safety) and are an integral process in the management of capital infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, etc.)

 

Local solutions need to be found for local problems

17.       Road safety around schools is a complex area which involves a broad spectrum of approaches.  Solutions to road safety problems range from applying of universal policies which underpin generic principles of risk management, child safety and planning, to local, community based approaches which examine the real problems and tailor the solutions accordingly.  Schools and school communities are very diverse by their nature – different demographic and geographical, socioeconomic, cultural and other characteristics shape environments around schools.  It is therefore appropriate that this diversity of characteristics and needs in school communities is addressed through local solutions, rather than through implementing a one-size-fits-all policy.

 

Solutions need to be based on a universal (generic) policy framework

18.       Local solutions must be driven, or based, on the generic policies of lead agencies which are responsible for the funding and implementation of the particular solutions.  Universal policies, based at a national or state level, may specifically outline the administrative process for implementing road safety solutions, or they may outline clear technical solutions for particular problems.  However, it is very important that these policies are seen as guides in local community road safety issues, and not necessarily as rigid rules which cannot be adapted to local situations.

 

Community ownership and involvement in solutions

19.       STAYSAFE has found that school communities and communities in general are highly involved in school road safety issues.  All matters relating to traffic control and safety around schools directly concern local communities, not only in terms of an ongoing emotional involvement in road safety matters, as well as a highly significant material, financial and environmental involvement. While this involvement often stems from the general social concern over the safety of children and growth of parental involvement in school matters, school communities involvement in road safety issues also flows from organised activities and projects concerning particular road safety matters.  STAYSAFE has identified that the Safer Routes to School Program, developed and conducted by the Roads and Traffic Authority, has an important role in empowering local and school communities to participate in school safety issues.

 

 

Local communities and the road transport system – the critical role of local traffic committees

 

20.       A common and continuing issue raised in submissions and testimony before STAYSAFE was the lack of understanding of the structures established in local councils to manage traffic matters and the road transport system in local communities, and a subsequent inability to access these structures effectively.  The role and function of local council traffic committees was poorly known, and poorly understood, by many of the correspondents and witnesses appearing before STAYSAFE.  STAYSAFE has found that this issue, which was not highlighted initially as an aspect of the inquiry, is of major importance and has generated a number of questions: who is the ultimate decision authority regarding local traffic committees; why is there a lack of clarity and transparency in the decision-making process; why is there is a perception that demands from schools regarding road safety concerns are not appropriately heard or ‘get lost’ in the process; why is there no provision for a school or educational representative to be placed on local traffic committees, given that up to half the agenda items of a typical meeting of a local traffic committee can relate to school issues; why is there concern that matters before local traffic committees can disappear - what happens to matters dealt with by local traffic committees if they are not able to be funded currently; and why are there no clear and consistent guidelines that lead the decision making process within local traffic committees.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Education and the Local Government and Shires Associations develop specific protocols for dealing with school safety matters which will define the relationship between school communities and members of the local traffic committees.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.1:  The Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Education and the Local Government and Shires Associations develop specific protocols for dealing with school safety matters which will define the relationship between school communities and members of the local traffic committees.

 

21.       STAYSAFE notes a commitment given by the Roads and Traffic Authority to develop information materials to publicise the role and function of local council traffic committees and to inform school communities (and others in local communities) as to the appropriate means and methods to raise concerns about safety and traffic control.

 

22.       A related matter commonly raised in submissions and testimony before STAYSAFE related to the circumstances where an approach had been made to a local council traffic committee there was often little feedback as to the outcome of the representations made to the traffic committee, particularly in situations where a safety or traffic control matter had been raised and recognised, but where the recommendation of the traffic committee was to action to be taken when funding became available.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority should establish a databank to document and track the recommendations of local traffic committees concerning schools and school safety.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.2:  The Roads and Traffic Authority should establish a databank to track the recommendations of local traffic committees concerning schools and school safety.

 

23.       Another concern raised in submissions and testimony before STAYSAFE was that the decisions of local council traffic committees appeared to be final, that is, there was no mechanism for school communities to appeal the decision and request a review.  Currently, local council traffic committee decisions can be taken to the Roads and Traffic Authority’s regional traffic committees for review and determination, but this mechanism is not available to community appellants, and is not seen as an independent mechanism. STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority should establish and administer an independent appeal mechanism for the review of the recommendations of local traffic committees be established in the form of a regional tribunal with representatives from relevant stakeholders.  STAYSAFE notes that the Minister for Roads has indicated that such an independent appeals mechanism will be established.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.3:  The Roads and Traffic Authority should establish an appeal mechanism for the review of the recommendations of local traffic committees in the form of a regional tribunal with representatives from relevant stakeholders.

 

24.       As noted, under current administrative arrangements local council traffic committee decisions can be taken to the Roads and Traffic Authority’s regional traffic committees for review and determination, but this mechanism is not available to community appellants.  STAYSAFE recommends that the guidelines for the operation of local council traffic committees and the new regional appeals tribunal to be established must provide that individual school communities may appeal the decision of a local traffic committee to the regional appeals tribunal.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.4:  Individual school communities may appeal the decision of a local traffic committee to the regional appeals tribunal.

 

25.       School communities, when considering the issue of local council traffic communities, indicated that decisions were often taken without the direct involvement of a school, the parents of children attending the school, bus companies involved in school travel, or other relevant stakeholders.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with the Department of Education and the other school sectors, as appropriate, should ensure that a representative of schools and/or school communities is a member of the local government traffic committee.  STAYSAFE further recommends that the school or education sector representative be appointed by the local council.

 

RECOMMENDATION 1.5:  The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with the Department of Education and the other school sectors, as appropriate, should ensure that a representative of schools and/or school communities is a member of the local government traffic committee and is appointed by the local council.

 

 

Community education about road safety around schools

 

26.       In an earlier paragraph it was noted that a common and continuing issue raised in submissions and testimony before STAYSAFE was the lack of understanding of the structures established in local councils to manage traffic matters and the road transport system in local communities, and a subsequent inability to access these structures effectively.  The role and function of local council traffic committees was poorly known, and poorly understood.  Not only should the Roads and Traffic Authority develop specific protocols for dealing with school safety matters which will define the relationship between school communities and members of the local traffic committees, it should ensure that, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, information is made available to explain the work and structure of the local traffic committees, and the process followed by a local traffic committee in deciding on matters of road safety and traffic control around schools.  Information should also be available as to how to make applications for development of traffic facilities, and strategies for the education of school communities in relation to achieving safer environments around schools, and to explain the staffing structures and functions within local councils, particularly the work of road safety officers, and the need for school communities to rely on road safety officers for advice on preparing submissions for the local traffic committee and other agencies.

 

RECOMMENDATION 2.1:  The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, develop information packs which:

   (a)     explain the work and structure of the local traffic committees, and the process followed by a local traffic committee in deciding on matters of road safety and traffic control around schools

   (b)     provide information on how to make applications for development of traffic facilities, and strategies for the education of school communities in relation to achieving safer environments around schools

   (c)     explain the work of road safety officers, and the need for school communities to rely on road safety officers for advice on preparing submissions for the local traffic committee and other agencies.

 

 

Safer Routes to School program

 

27.       STAYSAFE has found that the New South Wales Safer Routes to School program has been a highly effective program in educating and motivating school communities to address road safety and traffic control issues associated with the school and school travel. The safer routes to school program enables effective solutions to individual school problems to be identified.  However, there is a need to integrate an infrastructure and engineering component into the safer routes to school program.  STAYSAFE notes criticisms of the program, including:

    •      currently the Roads and Traffic Authority has placed the Safer Routes to School program ‘on hold’ and is only maintaining existing commitments to schools;

    •      the operation of the Safer Routes to School program as a behavioural intervention only, in contrast with other Australian States and Territories where the program identifies and incorporates engineering interventions as well as behavioural interventions

    •      the Safer Routes to School program applies only to infants and primary schools, and is not available to secondary schools in New South Wales

STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program be continued, enhanced and expanded to all infants and primary schools in New South Wales.  STAYSAFE also recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program is made available to all secondary schools in New South Wales.

 

RECOMMENDATION 3.1:  The Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program be continued, enhanced and expanded to all infants and primary schools in New South Wales.

 

RECOMMENDATION 3.2:  The Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that the Safer Routes to School Program is made available to secondary schools in New South Wales.

 

 

Road Safety Officer program

 

28.       STAYSAFE has identified the role of local council Road Safety Officers as critical to the effective management of traffic control and safety issues around schools.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, ensure that the road safety officer program is made available to all local councils in New South Wales, with the expansion of the program based on Federal, State, and local government  funding contributions.

 

RECOMMENDATION 4.1:  The Roads and Traffic Authority, in consultation with relevant agencies and organisations, ensure that the road safety officer program is available to all local councils in New South Wales, with the expansion of the program based on Federal, State, and local government  funding contributions.

 

 

Black spot funding program

 

29.       Black spot funding – a program allowing specific engineering interventions to be made at locations of road crash involvement, has been an effective road safety tool.  During the inquiry, STAYSAFE identified that capital infrastructure works should be provided around schools where there is a high risk associated with school travel (e.g., provision for safer access at the cluster of school precincts involving Carlingford High School, St Gerard’s Primary School, Roselea Public School, in northwestern Sydney).  STAYSAFE recommends that the most appropriate and eff4ective mechanism for the provision of capital infrastructure works at schools where there is a high risk associated with school travel is through the establishment of a black spot funding program, funded by Federal, State and local government, to accelerate urgent works around schools.

 

RECOMMENDATION 5.1   That a black spot funding program be established, funded by Federal, State and local government, to accelerate urgent works around schools.

 

 

School precinct management systems

 

30.       STAYSAFE has identified a variety of specific measures to be taken to more effectively manage traffic and pedestrian movements around schools.  STAYSAFE specifically recommends that school precincts must include:

    ·      "whole of school" day speed restrictions at all schools across New South Wales

    ·      a system of unique and identifiable colour coding of school precincts at all schools across New South Wales

    ·      40 km/h speed restrictions to be applied to roads on all accessible school property boundaries at all schools across New South Wales

    ·      implementation of 'whole of school precinct' traffic solutions

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.1:  Management systems must include "whole of school" day speed restrictions at all schools across New South Wales.

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.2: Management systems must include colour coding of school precincts at all schools across New South Wales.

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.3: Management systems must include 40 km/h speed restrictions to be applied to roads on all accessible school property boundaries at all schools across New South Wales.

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.4: Management systems must include implementation of 'whole of school precinct' traffic solutions.

 

31.       Many schools are located close to other schools, often on the same street.  Each clustering of individual school precincts should be viewed as a complex traffic area, not as a series of isolated 'stand-alone' institutions.  Often, the coincident presence of other institutions such as TAFE Colleges, preschools and child care centres, shopping centres, old age homes, necessitates an even more inclusive strategic approach.  Notable examples of these complex school clusters presented to STAYSAFE are: the Carlingford cluster (Carlingford High School, St. Gerard's Primary School, Roselea Public School, and a preschool); the Wagga Wagga cluster (Trinity Senior High School, Wagga Wagga Technology High School, Mt Erin High School, Riverina TAFE College, and a preschool); the Lake Munmorah cluster (Lake Munmorah Public School, Lake Munmorah High School, and St Brendan’s Primary School) ; and the East Gosford cluster (St Patrick’s Primary School, East Gosford Public School, St Joseph’s High School, St Edwards Girls High School, and a preschool). STAYSAFE recommends that, where appropriate, there should be implementation of traffic solutions based on clusters of school precincts rather than on individual solutions for each school

 

RECOMMENDATION 6.5: Management systems must include implementation of traffic solutions, where appropriate, based on clusters of school precincts.

 

 

The role of the Roads and Traffic Authority in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

32.       One of the most important aspects in the effective and efficient dealing with issues of community concern is the identification of who is responsible, that is, who, amongst all relevant stakeholders, should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that appropriate action is taken to deal with problems and opportunities that may arise.  In New South Wales, the Roads and Traffic Authority is required by the Government to be the leading agency in matters associated with traffic control and road safety.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority be confirmed as the lead agency for the development of policy and the design of traffic facilities, including but not limited to traffic facilities around schools.

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.1:  The Roads and Traffic Authority must be confirmed as the lead agency for the development of policy and the design of traffic facilities.

 

33.       STAYSAFE further recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority be confirmed as the lead agency in the provision of training and information for road safety and traffic control facilities associated with schools (it is noted that a later recommendation requires local councils to be the agency for the dissemination of road safety and traffic management information associated with schools).

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.2:  The Roads and Traffic Authority must be confirmed as the lead agency in the provision of training and information for road safety and traffic control facilities associated with schools.

 

34.       One of the major concerns voiced by school communities related to the general perception that the Roads and Traffic Authority perpetuates the view in the community that unless someone is killed or injured nothing will happen in terms of improving road safety and traffic control in the vicinity of schools.  A critical feature of the system of warrants required to get approval for a set of signalised traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing is the number of crashes, road injuries or road deaths – if a death or serious injury is recorded, then it is likely that an upgraded traffic  facility will be approved. STAYSAFE has found that there seems to be a reluctance to take into account what a school community knows and sees every day – risky and hazardous situations and behaviours, near misses, etc..

 

35.       As noted earlier, in the traditional road safety approach in Australia, it is an accepted practice that implementation of policies and strategies will be constrained within budgetary restrictions – decision makers are therefore required to prioritise the implementation of strategies in order to meet budgetary requirements.  Under this approach, the primary issue of importance regarding road safety around schools is to assess the level of crash incidence, and associated road trauma, as a basis for decisions about priorities and goals to be targeted by the Roads and Traffic Authority and other agencies when deciding on road safety around schools.  Road trauma associated with school children at the times of travel to and from school is not a significant part of the annual road toll in New South Wales. STAYSAFE has concluded that in school environments the appropriate means of identifying, assessing and controlling the likelihood of road crashes occurring is not to continue to rely on the historical crash record as the basis for decision making about traffic control interventions, but to move to a risk management model that identifies and takes account of risky or hazardous circumstances – circumstances that may not, as yet, have given rise to a serious injury or fatal crash.

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.3:  The criteria used in the warrant system in the guidelines for provision or upgrading of traffic control facilities needs to be reweighed from a sole reliance on historical crash data to risk management, including hazard identification and assessment, and the recording of near miss incidents.

 

36.       STAYSAFE is concerned that many local communities are unaware of the existence of traffic guidelines and the warrant system (criteria) used to assess the requirements for traffic facilities, and that even when known, it is difficult to access the traffic guidelines.  STAYSAFE is also concerned that many of the guidelines associated with traffic control around schools remain as interim guidelines.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Roads and Traffic Authority take specific action to ensure that all relevant traffic guidelines associated with traffic control around schools are updated, confirmed, published and given widespread distribution (including availability on the Internet at the Roads and Traffic Authority's website).

 

RECOMMENDATION 7.4:  The Roads and Traffic Authority take specific action to ensure that all relevant traffic guidelines associated with traffic control around schools are updated, confirmed, published and given widespread distribution (including availability on the Internet at the Roads and Traffic Authority's website).

 

 

The role of the Department of Education in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

37.       Within school sites, the owner is responsible for the provision of appropriate and safe traffic facilities, that is, pedestrian access and movement within the site, bicycle access, staff, visitor, and student parking spaces, access roads and driveways, bus bays and bus turning circles.  Good traffic management practices further require a separation of these various traffic functions so that there is no conflict between road users.  While this is an accepted practice for non-Governmental schools, STAYSAFE recommends that it also be confirmed for public school sites administered by the Department of Education.

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.1:  The Department of Education mus be confirmed as the lead agency for providing road safety and traffic control facilities within public school sites.

 

38.       As is common practice by local councils concerning sites owned and administered by non-Governmental schools, STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Education should be required, on greenfield sites, to provide traffic facilities on site, and with separation of traffic function.

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.2:  The Department of Education should, on greenfield sites, provide traffic facilities on site, and with separation of traffic function.

 

39.       STAYSAFE recognises that providing on-site traffic management solution and separation of traffic function can be difficult on school sites that are already developed, and notes that more than half of the public schools in New South Wales operate on sites developed before 1950.  These sites pose particular challenges as they were developed prior to significant increases in vehicular traffic flows, traffic volumes, and traffic mix as a result of local and broader community growth.  STAYSAFE has noted problems with a significant number of schools being located with frontages directly onto major roads, and with schools facing their immediate traffic environment being adversely impacted by residential, commercial and industrial developments (even when they are at some distance from the school).  STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Education should, when retrofitting schools on existing 'brownfield' sites, provide on site traffic control solutions where possible.  Where there is additional or changing site use at an existing school site (e.g., schools being re-developed under the collegiate high schools concept), the installation of  any new traffic facilities should be undertaken in sequence with the changed usage rather than as an afterthought once the new functions have been put in place.

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.3:  The Department of Education should, on brownfield sites

   (a)     where retrofitting, provide on site traffic control solutions where possible; and

   (b)     where there is additional or changing site use, install traffic facilities in sequence with the changed usage (e.g., schools being re-developed under the collegiate high schools concept).

 

40.       A specific matter noted by STAYSAFE during the inquiry was testimony that within the Department of Education advice to school principals and school communities regarding traffic facilities around schools was routinely provided by the Department of Education's road safety education curriculum advisers, rather than by the Department of Education's property management area.  STAYSAFE does not regard it as appropriate that road safety curriculum advisers be giving advice regarding traffic management around and within schools.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Education transfer new and any current road safety responsibilities regarding traffic facilities around schools from road safety education curriculum advisers to the Department of Education’s Properties area.

 

RECOMMENDATION 8.4:  The Department of Education transfer new and any current road safety responsibilities regarding traffic facilities around schools from road safety education curriculum advisers to the Department of Education’s Properties area.

 

 

The role of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

41.       STAYSAFE has found that there is concern that while non-Government schools can be required to make s.94 contributions for new (greenfield) developments, the Department of Education and Training is regarded as exempt – this limits the traffic control facility provision that can be made for traffic control around new schools.   The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning's testimony to STAYSAFE indicated that there is no statutory basis for this 'exemption', and that the practice of exempting the Department of Education appears to have been based on historical policy.  STAYSAFE has found that the Department of Education should provide traffic facilities associated with new public school sites.  STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning introduce guidelines (or, if necessary, regulations) to compel the Department of Education to provide traffic facilities associated with its site services, as are all other service providers.

 

42.       STAYSAFE has also noted that the redevelopment of existing 'brownfield' school sites typically does not include an assessment of the impact of any redevelopment on the traffic control environment around the school, and further, that any redevelopment of existing school sites does not require any contribution towards refurbishment of traffic facilities around the school site or along more distant travel routes to school.  Normal demographic changes within a community can cause rapid expansion to school facilities.  Policies such as ‘out of zone’ schooling and the development of collegiate high schools can have a major impact on amount and mode of school-related travel (no longer local travel to local schools, increased use of buses, private vehicles).   STAYSAFE is considering if schools be subject to a traffic generation contribution plan for refurbishment of existing sites.

 

43.       STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning produce ‘practice notes’ for the use of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act s.94 contributions in relation to the provision of traffic facilities around schools.

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.1:  The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning introduce guidelines (or regulations) to compel the Department of Education to provide traffic facilities associated with its site services, as are all other service providers.

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.2:  That the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning produce ‘practice notes’ for the use of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act s.94 contributions in relation to the provision of traffic facilities around schools (given that 50% of existing schools were built before 1950).

 

44.       In line with the preceding paragraphs, STAYSAFE recommends that it should be established practice that when the Department of Education is seeking new 'greenfields' sites for schools that the land area to be acquired or developed must include provision for on site traffic control facilities associated with a school's operations (including student travel).

 

RECOMMENDATION 9.3:  That in the designation of proposed Department of Education sites: that the land area to be acquired or developed for the Department of Education must include provision for on site traffic control facilities associated with the school's operations (including student travel).

 

 

The role of the Department of Transport in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

45.       A significant aspect of STAYSAFE’s investigation concerned school travel that was associated with, or involved, travel by bus.  Schools are faced with the movement of large vehicles (buses), at the same time as the pedestrian and other vehicle traffic movements peak.  Moreover, both route buses and school buses operate to defined schedules, often with only very narrow time tolerances in order to match travel demands involving multiple bus routes and connecting services, or different transport services (rail, ferry, etc.).  With changed policies relating to out-of-zone schooling and collegiate high schools, together with the continuing development of independent schools, the need for connecting school travel services involving buses and other transport modalities is increasing, and has seen the development of transport interchanges outside schools, in town streets, at rural intersections, railway stations, etc..  While the Department of Transport has a clear responsibility relating to bus operations and student bus travel, the responsibilities for the safety of school children at the transport interchanges is less clear.  To correct what appears to be a policy vacuum regarding this issue, STAYSAFE recommends that the Department of Transport be confirmed as the lead agency for personal safety issues relating to student bus travel and transport interchanges (outside schools, in towns, at rural intersections, railway stations, etc.).

 

RECOMMENDATION 10.1:  The Department of Transport must be confirmed as the lead agency for personal safety issues relating to student bus travel and transport interchanges (outside schools, in towns, at rural intersections, railway stations, etc.).

 

46.       STAYSAFE notes a concurrent inquiry by New South Wales Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee into the School Student Travel Scheme, administered by the Department of Transport, and will consider any relevant findings and recommendations arising from that inquiry that are associated with bus travel by school children when the Public Accounts Committee tables its report.

 

47.       A specific issue that was noted in many submissions and in testimony before STAYSAFE related to the placement of student set down and pick up locations associated with schools that were regarded as inappropriate and risky to school children, for example, bus stops placed on the opposite side of roads outside schools, requiring school children to cross after disembarking to attend school, or to board the bus in departure from school.  School communities reported considerable difficulty in attempting to negotiate changes to the student set down and pick up locations, with bus companies indicating that even minor changes could impact on the cost and profitability of a route service involving school travel or could impact on the scheduling of bus services.  STAYSAFE has generally accepted these arguments, but has found that it would be appropriate for student set down and pick up locations associated with schools to be negotiated and defined as part of the bus service contracts for school travel administered by the Department of Transport.  Inclusion of student set down and pick up locations associated with schools as an element of a bus service contract would allow for the selection of appropriate, less risky bus stops outside and around schools in circumstances where any cost or scheduling impacts would have to be clearly defined and negotiated.

 

RECOMMENDATION 10.2:  Student set down and pick up locations associated with schools, must be included within the Department of Transport's bus service contracts.

 

 

The role of the New South Wales Police Service in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

48.       Compliance with traffic laws and the choice of appropriate behaviours to reduce risk of a road crash were issues raised in many of the submissions received by STAYSAFE.  Witnesses appearing before STAYSAFE also raised concerns about inappropriate and illegal behaviours associated with school travel, including speeding in 40 km/h school speed zones, a variety of illegal parking behaviours (double parking, parking on pedestrian crossings, parking on footpaths, parking in bus zones, No Parking, No Stopping and No Standing zones, parking in private driveways, parking in school driveways and access roads, all often with drivers leaving their vehicles to enter the school), not giving way to children and adults on pedestrians crossings, not stopping at signalised traffic lights on the red phase (and/or accelerating through the amber phase), and parents leaving children to cross roads unescorted or parents calling children across roads unescorted.  There was a high level of dissatisfaction with enforcement actions taken by police, parking police and council rangers regarding inappropriate and illegal behaviours, both in terms of the availability of police to conduct traffic enforcement, and the difficulties in maintaining appropriate behaviours after enforcement action had occurred.

 

49.       STAYSAFE finds that there is a need to look at compliance and enforcement in an integrative manner, assessing relevant factors such as lack of police resources, inappropriate education of drivers (particularly parents),  and street design issues (lack of speeding devices, confusing signage), etc..  Issues that need to be considered include, but should not be limited to:

    ·      clarification of enforcement protocols by police and local councils;

    ·      local councils to have an increased role in enforcement of traffic law  (illegal parking, speeding);

    ·      targeted media campaigns to raise driver and parent awareness (e.g., regarding correct use of No Stopping and No Parking zones);

    ·      a new offence targeting parents and carers who call a primary school-aged child to cross a road unescorted;

    ·      appropriate signage around schools to be installed whenever possible to warn drivers about school zones and alternative routes (e.g., ‘cockatoo’ or flashing lights, electronic speed advisory signage);

    ·      increased use of ‘Stop, Kiss and Leave’ parking zones;

    ·      removal of No Standing zones around schools; and

    ·      use of physical barriers (e.g., raised kerbing) to delineate No Stopping zones.

 

50.       STAYSAFE accepts that in terms of policing resources there are difficulties in achieving a desirable level of enforcement and compliance, given the nature of school travel (short time frames, very high traffic volumes in terms of pedestrian movements and vehicle movements) but nonetheless finds that it is possible to better manage the deployment of police resources to target inappropriate and illegal behaviours associated with school travel.  STAYSAFE therefore recommends that traffic law compliance taskings are to be an auditable item for local area command reports.

 

RECOMMENDATION 11.1:  That traffic law compliance taskings are to be an auditable item for local area command reports.

 

51.       STAYSAFE also accepts that an aspect of difficulties seen in achieving a desirable level of enforcement and compliance relates to the capacity of police, parking police and council rangers to take effective action at law regarding inappropriate and illegal behaviours associated with school travel (e.g., enforcement of the 40 km/h school speed zone, and enforcement of some parking offences).  STAYSAFE therefore recommends that there be a review of traffic law legislation and operational instructions and policies to ensure that traffic control facilities installed around schools are enforceable by police and are enforced by police.

 

RECOMMENDATION 11.2:  That there be a review of traffic law legislation and operational instructions and policies to ensure that traffic control facilities installed around schools are enforceable by police and are enforced by police.

 

52.       STAYSAFE notes that the transfer of parking policing functions from the New South Wales Police Service to local councils from July 2001 will provide an opportunity for a general strategic review of inappropriate and illegal parking, including in the vicinity of schools.

 

 

The role of local councils in dealing with traffic control and safety around schools

 

53.       Local government is integral to the development of local solutions to the local problems faced by school communities within the road transport system.  In the main, local councils are often the first point of contact by the community when attempting to deal with road safety and traffic management issues associated with schools.

 

54.       STAYSAFE therefore finds that it is appropriate for local councils to be responsible for the distribution of school road safety-related information to the local community generally, and to school communities in particular.

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.1:  That local councils to be responsible for the distribution of school road safety-related information.

 

55.       Local councils are the planning consent authority for development within local communities.  Their is a need to ensure consistency of approach across all developments.  STAYSAFE recommends that issues relating to road  safety associated with school sites should meet the same conditions of consent as other service providers.

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.2:  That as local councils are the planning consent authority, issues relating to road  safety associated with school sites should meet the same conditions of consent as other service providers.

 

56.       STAYSAFE has in a preceding section identified that local council traffic committees are the critical structures established to manage traffic matters and the road transport system in local communities.  As a final recommendation, STAYSAFE confirms that local council traffic committees are the 'engine room' for the resolution of school traffic facility and road safety issues, and the work of the local council traffic committees is to be enhanced by the establishment of a regional review tribunal.

 

RECOMMENDATION 12.3:  That local council traffic committees must be confirmed as the 'engine room' for the resolution of school traffic facility and road safety issues.

 

 

Concluding comments

 

57.       The traffic environment around schools is one of the most complex road transport environments normally encountered by the majority of motorists, and is easily the most complex traffic environment normally encountered by children.  For periods of 30 minutes or more during the morning traffic peak, and for a very intense 10-15 minutes in the mid-afternoon, the immediate frontages of schools experience traffic volumes and a diversity of road use that is only seen in busy commercial and shopping centres or associated with mass movements of people to sports and other large community events.

 

58.       It is perhaps the complexity and ephemeral nature of the traffic environment around schools that has tended to hide the significant risks posed by this environment to all road users, but particularly to school children seeking to travel from home to school and return.