Road Safety

Slower Speeds, Stronger Economy: The Evidence Stacks Up

One argument that is often used against lower speeds is that they are bad for the economy. Austroads, the association of the Australian and New Zealand transport agencies, has produced a report looking into the economics of safer speeds.

Key Takeaways

• The assessment applies a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) approach that compares the costs and benefits for society from speed limit reductions in primarily urban areas.
• The analysis includes the additional vehicle travel time, the avoided crash and road trauma costs for society and the improvements in pedestrian amenity and mobility.
• To estimate pedestrian amenity and severance benefits, the assessment applies methodologies that value place effects.
• All 12 tested scenarios had a benefit-cost ratio of more than one, which means the benefits for society outweighed the productivity-related costs from increased travel time:

• A key driver of outcomes was the starting level of crash risk on a road, which affects the reduction in crashes achievable with speed reduction.
• Speed limit reductions affect pedestrian amenity and movement.
• These additional benefits can be substantial compared to travel time impacts for motorists.
• The relative number of pedestrian trips to vehicle trips is a key driver of the results. The scenarios with the highest BCRs are those in which pedestrian movements are critical and relatively high.
• The findings were sensitive to the assumptions made about traffic flow and the degree to which motorists' travel time may be impeded by other factors.
• The assessment also considered the scenarios absent the amenity and severance benefits. 9 of the 12 options still had benefits that exceeded costs.
• The results of the analysis may be conservative as they do not include benefits to cyclists, induced active transport demand or modal and route shifts.

Comment

This report adds to the steadily accumulating weight of evidence of the benefits of slower speeds. Unfortunately, progress in reducing speed limits around the world is mixed and is one of the (many) areas of transport where we have a growing divide between the evidence and the reality. I expect this to be a key area of discussion for the Transport Reform Project.

What Next?

Have you got streets that would benefit significantly from slower speeds?

Strategic Planning

A Vision for 2040 - The Right Priorities?

The UK's Advanced Propulsion Centre has set out a Vision for Road Transport in 2040 in a recent report.

Key Takeaways

• Vision: to transform road-based transport into a seamless, integrated ecosystem that is safe, efficient, sustainable, and inclusive.
• Addresses the convergence of transport, energy, and digital systems, aiming to deliver economic growth, environmental regeneration, and universal access.
• By 2040, mobility will no longer operate in silos. Instead, it will function as a unified, orchestrated system where journeys are predictable, affordable, and accessible.
• Three foundational shifts:
  • Interoperability and Open Standards: Common frameworks for data, safety, and accessibility
  • Integrated Energy and Transport Systems: Bidirectional charging, depot energy management, and renewable-powered corridors
  • User-Centric Design: Seamless planning and payment through single platforms, proactive disruption management, and inclusive access
• These shifts are enabled by 4 interconnected pillars:

• The UK’s transport system will evolve from a vehicle-centric model to a systemic, adaptive network, delivering economic, social, and environmental value.
• Delivering Vision 2040 demands collaboration across sectors: Automotive & OEMs, Energy & Utilities, Digital & Telecoms, Infrastructure & Construction
• To unlock this transformation, the UK must prioritise:
  • AI assurance and certification frameworks
  • Outcome-based funding and service models
  • Circular economy principles embedded in design and operations
  • Policy alignment to manage short-term energy demands and enable innovation

Comment

Whilst I think the report does a reasonable job of highlighting some technologies that will become ubiquitous in the years ahead, I was unconvinced by two things.

Firstly, there was a lot of emphasis on Mobility as a Service type offerings to get people out of their cars, something that has not proved successful in most jurisdictions.

Secondly, the technology was largely focused on improving the efficiency of the existing transport system, which will likely induce demand for cars, when what is needed is better support for public and active transport.

In short, I think a lot of the vision is a distraction from what we actually need to focus on:

1. Better active transport provision.
2. Improved public transport services.
3. Managing the demand for motor vehicles, especially autonomous vehicles.

What Next?

Are you clear on what levers need to be pulled to deliver better transport systems by 2040?

Roads

Roads: Time to Build Less, Maintain More

Many countries are struggling to adequately maintain their existing roads whilst they continue to build new and expanded roads. This is true in the United States. This Strong Towns paper argues for reforming the Highway Trust Fund to prioritise road maintenance over expansion.

Key Takeaways

• The United States began building its interstate network in 1956 and completed it in 1992.
• Congress has expanded the uses of the Highway Trust Fund. Beginning in the 1970s, federal highway dollars were opened to mass transit, then to an ever-growing array of local projects.
• Today, USDOT is responsible for more than twenty national goals, many of them conflicting, none of them prioritised.
• The original social contract of the Highway Trust Fund — drivers pay user fees, those fees build and maintain the system — has broken down entirely.
• Despite this collapse, federal allocations continue to flow through legacy formulas disconnected from population, traffic volumes, or performance.
• The funds are focused on expansion, whilst governments cannot afford the cost of maintenance.
• Federal incentives push communities toward expensive, low-return projects that weaken their long-term fiscal sustainability.
• This white paper proposes a new federal model built on several pillars, including:
  • Re-codify a narrow federal mission. Focuses solely on Interstate and multi-state freight corridors, national safety standards and data, and disaster response and resilience.
  • Return the gas tax to the states for maintenance.
  • Light-touch federal oversight. Replace thousands of grant requirements with one public Interstate Health Dashboard.
  • Retain essential federal public goods. USDOT continues to support national research, standard-setting, data systems, and emergency response capacity.

Comment

Whilst this paper is about the United States, many countries have similar problems. They continue to overinvest in new and expanded roads with low returns, whilst they cannot properly maintain what they have.

Surprisingly, the paper is silent on what should happen as gas tax revenue reduces with the switch to electric vehicles. The sensible thing to do would be to implement a road pricing system.

The paper is also too quiet on how to fund transit projects.

What Next?

Are you spending too much money on low-return road expansion projects, whilst unable to afford maintenance?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Walking home at night is not the same for women​
• ​Most Of America's Paint-Only Bike Paths Are On Our Deadliest Roads​
• ​Pedestrianizing “School Streets” in Paris​

Podcast

Integrating Transport and Land Use Planning (From the Archives)

This week on the Transport Leaders podcast, Graham McCabe and I discussed why transport and land use planning integration is so hard:

• Why urban planners and transport planners don't talk to each other.
• The different departmental and political silos.
• The different cultures between the disciplines.
• Why transport models overestimate car use and how that impacts housing.
• We looked at examples from all around the world - Japan, Singapore, London and Australia.
• How to improve the situation.

You can watch it here or listen here.

Innovation

“Flying” electric boats could remake urban transport

Will hydrofoil boats replace traditional ferries? This story is from The Economist.

Tool

Definitions for Cycling Infrastructure

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has created a new guide to definitions for cycling infrastructure.

Before you go:

If you want to overcome the barriers to reforming transport, don't forget to register an interest in the Transport Reform Project here.