#58 Network Safety Plan (Part 2)

As reported in our previous brief on the topic, a Network Safety Plan (NSP) is a strategic plan to reduce crash risk across a network by prioritising investment in safety infrastructure and related measures. In Victoria, the TAC is currently funding the development of the Network Safety Plan. The current brief expands upon the previous entry with further details about NSP foundations, integration with related strategies and approaches, and anticipated benefits.

NSPs are based on Safe System and Movement and Place principles, and consistency in applied standards, while also incorporating the concept of self-explaining or self-enforcing roads. NSP development is informed by tools such as the Australian National Risk Assessment Model (ANRAM) and the Australian Road Assessment Program (AusRAP) to derive relevant scores and risk ratings. These assessment tools and related indicators can help with the distribution and allocation of resources where budgets are often constrained.

Road stereotypes

Categorising road stereotypes is a core component of developing an NSP, as outlined in the Network Design for Road Safety User Guide[1], and is also a key element for Movement and Place implementation. Conceptually, an NSP may apply ‘network-wide’ across different geographic boundaries, such as Local Government Areas (Councils), metropolitan areas, and/or regional and rural areas. Austroads identifies 13 road stereotypes in total, with 8 separate categories for rural and 5 for urban roads (Figure 1). Four of the rural road stereotypes fall under the banner of Rural highways, separated by their divided/undivided status and also traffic volumes (AADT).

Related concepts and approaches

Within the ‘3 E’s’ road safety framework of Engineering, Education and Enforcement, the focus of NSPs is largely on engineering. However, education can still be considered an important element for informing road users of the overall strategy and objectives, as well as the reasons they may experience temporary disruptions on specific parts of the network during implementation. Meanwhile, enforcement remains relevant not least due to the aim to produce ‘self-enforcing’ roads which encourage compliant speeds through design (e.g., traffic calming measures on local roads), thereby reducing the need for punitive enforcement measures.

NSPs have a clear relation to blackspot treatments, with both seeking to invest resources where there is the greatest potential for risk reduction. Apart from distinct differences in geographic scope, where NSPs apply network-wide while blackspots refer to specific sites, another key difference is the timeframes for implementation, which are generally much longer for NSPs than for blackspot treatments. As such, an NSP may incorporate measures for known blackspots, but may also assist to proactively identify and address potential future problem sites before they meet specified ‘blackspot’ criteria.

[1] Austroads (2020). Network Design for Road Safety (Stereotypes for Cross Sections and Intersections) User Guide. AP-R619-20. Sydney, Austroads. https://austroads.gov.au/publications/road-design/ap-r619-20/media/AP-R619-20_Network_Design_for_Road_Safety_User_Guide_ed1.1.pdf