Strategy

Germany is on the Footpath to Nowhere with its Pedestrian Strategy

The German Federal Government launched its pedestrian traffic strategy last month. Given this was a recent strategy in a G7 country, I had high hopes for what I would find. Boy, was I disappointed.

The strategy is sorely required. Whilst Germany needs to significantly increase pedestrianisation to meet its climate goals (and the many other benefits of walking), it is currently predicting a DECLINE in pedestrian traffic of 5% by 2040.

The strategy's objectives:

• Recognition of pedestrian traffic as an equal and legitimate mode of transport,
• Increasing road safety and significantly reducing accidents,
• Improving the quality of life through more attractive pedestrian transport options and better quality of stay in public spaces,
• Promoting climate and environmental protection, in particular by increasing the share of pedestrian traffic by 2030,
• Promoting the health and quality of life of the population through active mobility,
• Supporting the local economy - increase the economic attractiveness of neighborhoods, city centers and shopping streets.
• Improving social participation and inclusion. Ensuring barrier-free mobility for all, especially for people with reduced mobility.

The strategy then goes on to define five fields of action:

• Legal framework
• Municipal planning
• Financing and funding
• Administrative structures and awareness-raising, and
• Research and evaluation.

So, why am I disappointed in the strategy? I have several issues with it:

1. The objectives are vague. Where are the specific targets and timeframes?
2. There is no new money to go with the strategy. The funding talked about is existing small pots.
3. Most of the strategy is motherhood and apple pie, which can be summed up as: to increase pedestrian traffic, make it easier and nicer for people to walk.

Was there anything I liked about the strategy? The recommendation to have specialised positions in municipal administrations to pursue the objectives of pedestrian traffic is a sensible suggestion.

What next?

Do you need to develop a pedestrian strategy? If so, learn from the mistakes of the German strategy.

Safety

Road Safety Needs a Rethink: Is Driving Reduction the Answer?

​Here is a thought-provoking report by the excellent Todd Litman from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Canada.

Key Takeaways

• Current U.S. traffic safety programs are failing to reduce crash rates, and most recently crash rates have increased.
• A new traffic safety paradigm needs to be used to reduce crashes.
• The old traffic safety paradigm argues that traffic crashes are primarily caused by bad driving and recommends targeted technologies, education and enforcement programs.
• Many studies have indicated that exposure — the amount people drive — is a key risk factor.
• Policies and projects that induce additional vehicle travel will likely increase crash rates.
• Vehicle travel reduction strategies can significantly increase safety in addition to their other benefits, something that is often overlooked as a benefit of these strategies.
• Traditional traffic safety strategies remain important, and the two approaches are often complementary.

When we measure crash rates on a per-mile/kilometre driven basis, we often assume the amount driven is not within our control. Perhaps we should move away from this type of measure to one focused on an individual measure, such as the chance of someone having a crash.

What next?

Are you struggling to meet your road safety targets? Should vehicle travel reduction strategies be introduced into the mix?

Policy

New Zealand’s Transport U-Turn: What Went Wrong?

The New Zealand (NZ) government is implementing a range of transport policies that are opposed by many transport experts and appear to be ignoring evidence. What is going on and what lessons can we draw?

The changes include the following:

• Rolling back speed limit reductions
• Halting of Active Transport Initiatives
• Cancelling Auckland’s light rail plan
• Reducing road use charges
• Abandoning regional passenger rail initiatives
• Prioritising new highway construction

So what is going on and what lessons can be learnt?

It is too easy to say this is ideological and shrug our shoulders. Government’s of both the left and the right have undertaken many of the policies transport experts would recommend, including investing heavily in public and active transport, so why is NZ different? A few possibilities spring to mind

1. The previous government did not do enough to forge consensus on transport issues; therefore, its reforms were always vulnerable to reversal.
2. Transport advocates need to engage with a broader audience on the benefits of public and active transport, lower speed limits, etc.
3. The language of transport is often skewed heavily in favour of left-leaning voters, effectively polarising debate. For example, many transport advocates talk extensively about carbon emissions or equity when these are a much lower priority for centre-right voters.

The NZ experience has made me reflect on what I need to do differently.

What next?

Is the language you use to promote good transport policies appealing to the widest possible audience to achieve a broad consensus?

Planning

Building Rail Is Not Enough: A Warning for Future Rail Projects

A recent blog from Hayden Clarkin looked at the lessons we can learn from America’s least ridden train, Nashville’s WeGo Star. The line is a 32-mile rail service between Nashville and Lebanon with six stations, averaging just 482 weekday riders.

The blog emphasises that rail needs to be convenient, and this line is not. Key issues:

1. Station placement. The line serves just 867 people per square mile, much lower than comparable successful regional rail lines. One station serves just 11 homes within a half-mile walk of the station. The terminus at Lebanon is 0.6 miles, a 20 minute walk from the town centre.
2. Not well connected. Of the six stations outside of Nashville, only two have bus connections, and both are served by the same bus route - which happens to run parallel to the train. The stations also have poor pedestrian access.
3. Lack of frequency. The service operates only three trains during the morning peak and three during the evening peak in both directions, with no weekend service.
4. It is too slow. Nearly every possible trip on this route is slower than driving or taking a rideshare.

Is this an example of a project implemented for its own sake instead of focusing on the outcomes we are trying to achieve? We need robust governance structures to ensure projects maximise their chances of delivering the results we want to achieve.

What Next?

Do you have a robust governance model for new rail projects to avoid the mistakes in Nashville?

Blog

​From Cautious to Courageous: Supporting Political Leaders to Achieve Bold Reform​

Too often, we expect political leaders to champion major reforms alone - balancing public expectations, political risk, and complex policy landscapes. But what if we rethought how we support them?

In my latest blog, I explore a Risk-Competency Matrix that helps public servants and advisors identify where political leaders stand in their reform journey—and how to help them towards bolder, more successful policy changes.

Key Takeaways

• Our traditional model of the lone political leader (leader) driving policy reform is far too narrow and is not delivering the needed reforms.
• One way of broadening our horizons is to consider the political risk appetite and reform competency matrix for leaders.
• The matrix provides the public service with four ways forward for holistically supporting leaders in reforms:

1. Increase the political risk tolerance, such as by proposing more minor reforms to build confidence.
2. Reduce the political risk to fall within the risk tolerance level.
3. Improve reform competence by offering high-quality policy reform training.
4. Lower the level of competence required for a particular reform by building highly competent policy reform teams.

What next?

Could you talk with political leaders about how you can support them in undertaking reform?

Leadership

Tearing Down Walls: How to Build a More Collaborative Transport Organisation

Many transport organisations struggle with silos, so how do leaders go about breaking them down. Here are some suggestions:

• Create a unified vision that connects all parts of the organisation to shared outcomes.
• Model cross-functional collaboration in the leadership team.
• Recognise and reward collaborative behaviours, making it a key requirement for any promotion or recruitment.
• Create cross-functional teams for key projects and initiatives and if successful, use them as case studies to demonstrate the value of breaking down silos.
• Establish cross divisional forums for sharing updates and challenges.
• Implement job rotations to build understanding across teams.
• Train leaders to be aware of territorial behaviours and to constructively address them in their staff.
• Build informal networks through social events and team-building

What next?

Could you identify an area where cross-functional collaboration needs improvement and focus on how to improve it?

Innovation

Performance Data Goes Live At Stations

Passengers across England can now see how reliable their local train services are, with performance data at over 1,700 stations. The data, broken down by operator, shows the percentage of trains cancelled and how punctual trains are at each station. It is now live at major stations through digital screens, while passengers can scan a QR code to see the data at smaller stations.

Tool

Safe System Road Safety

The International Transport Forum has published a tool for assessing the level of maturity for road safety based on the forum’s ‘Safe System’. The Tool helps road safety stakeholders evaluate how their strategies, projects, or plans contribute to a Safe System. It visualises opportunities for improvement and helps identify effective interventions to save lives. Note: There is no focus on reducing the amount driven.