Implementation Principles for 30 km/h Speed Limits and Zones

Abstract

In the context of the Safe System approach for harm minimisation where fatal and serious injuries are not accepted as inevitable costs of mobility in any transport system, there is an increasing need to consider implementing speed limits within the tolerance of road users. The need to implement speeds limits lower than 40 km/h in an urban area with high pedestrian movement and activity has been recognised by an Australian state road agency. Through a literature review, stakeholder consultation with road transport agencies in Australia and New Zealand and a Safe System analysis, this paper presents the development of guiding principles in implementing 30 km/h speed limits and zones in Australasia. The implementation principles have been developed to inform a revision of the existing speed zoning guidelines and its applications within the jurisdiction, which are also applicable elsewhere across the country and internationally.

Full text

1 of 14
Implementation Principles for 30 km/h Speed
1
Limits and Zones
2
3
Auttapone Karndacharuk1 and David McTiernan1
4
5
1Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), Sydney, Australia
6
7
Corresponding Author: Aut Karndacharuk, 2-14 Mountain Street, Ultimo NSW 2007,
8
auttapone.karndacharuk@arrb.com.au and +61 2 9282 4405.
9
10
Key Findings
11
12
• Implementation principles developed for an Australian state road agency;
13
• Emphasis on an area-wide 30 km/h practice for improved road safety and environment;
14
• Unlike New Zealand, Australia has limited experience in 30 km/h implementation;
15
• 30 km/h speed limit practice aligns well with the Safe System approach and principles.
16
17
Abstract
18
19
In the context of the Safe System approach for harm minimisation where fatal and serious injuries
20
are not accepted as inevitable costs of mobility in any transport system, there is an increasing need
21
to consider implementing speed limits within the tolerance of road users. The need to implement
22
speeds limits lower than 40 km/h in an urban area with high pedestrian movement and activity has
23
been recognised by an Australian state road agency. Through a literature review, stakeholder
24
consultation with road transport agencies in Australia and New Zealand and a Safe System analysis,
25
this paper presents the development of guiding principles in implementing 30 km/h speed limits and
26
zones in Australasia. The implementation principles have been developed to inform a revision of
27
the existing speed zoning guidelines and its applications within the jurisdiction, which are also
28
applicable elsewhere across the country and internationally.
29
30
Keywords
31
32
Speed Limit; Speed Zone; 30 km/h; Traffic Calming; Local Area Traffic Management; Speed
33
Management
34
35
Introduction
36
37
In Australia, current practices and guidelines foster the implementation of a 40 km/h speed limit in
38
high pedestrian activity areas and a 10 km/h limit in designated shared zones. While there are trials
39
and pilot tests in the country, the use of area-wide 30 km/h speed limits are not generally accepted,
40
partly due to regulatory barriers.
41
42
Internationally, particularly in Europe, a speed limit of 30 km/h (or 20 mph), by contrast, has long
43
been employed as a measure to reduce vehicular dominance and for improving pedestrian safety
44
and amenity. One early example developed in the 1970s was ‘verkehrsberuhigung’ (German for
45

2 of 14
‘traffic calming’), which describes speed control measures such as 30 km/h speed zones to improve
46
street environments (Brindle 1992).
47
48
In the context of the Safe System and harm minimisation approach where fatal and serious injuries
49
(FSIs) are not accepted as inevitable costs of mobility in any transport system, there is an increasing
50
need to consider implementing speed limits lower than 40 km/h in heavily pedestrianised areas.
51
This situation has been recognised by a state-level transport agency in an Australian jurisdiction.
52
This paper presents the results of a literature review of 30 km/h speed zone implementation and
53
stakeholder consultation. The implementation principles have been prepared to inform a revision of
54
the existing speed zoning guidelines and its applications within the jurisdiction, which are also
55
applicable elsewhere across the country and internationally.
56
57
Methods
58
59
The research methodology included a review of the literature on the 30 km/h speed limits and zones,
60
stakeholder consultation with Australian and New Zealand road transport agencies and a Safe System
61
analysis. The focus of the review of published literature in relation to 30 km/h speed limit practice
62
was on the guidance, policies and criteria for setting 30 km/h speed zones. The review findings,
63
including a comprehensive list of 30 km/h speed limit schemes in various jurisdictions, are
64
documented in Karndacharuk & McTiernan (2017).
65
66
Targeted stakeholder consultation with Australian and New Zealand road transport agencies was
67
undertaken to obtain jurisdictional views and practice on the 30 km/h speed limit implementation,
68
including views about the approach, lessons learnt from design and implementation experiences as
69
well as key issues and lessons learnt. For the Safe System analysis, the objective was to identify the
70
extent to which the 30 km/h speed zone implementation requirements align, and are consistent with,
71
the Safe System approach and its pillars.
72
73
Discussion of Review Findings
74
75
This section offers a discussion of the literature review findings with an aim to inform a
76
development of the guiding principles. It is noted that the speed limit of 20 mph (equivalent to
77
approximately 32 km/h) is used interchangeably with 30 km/h in this paper. Additionally, the 30
78
km/h speed limits in many European countries are predominantly applied in a residential context
79
rather than an area with high pedestrian activity.
80
81
Towards area-wide practice in both residential areas and activity centres
82
83
A shift from a linear or ‘pockets’ implementation towards an area-wide practice can be observed,
84
especially in the UK and Europe, in both residential and mixed-use areas. The 30 km/h speed limit
85
designation is an integrated part of the Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety – the precursor to the Safe
86
System approach. The 30 km/h zones are applied principally to urban local roads that serve the
87

3 of 14
dominant access function while facilitating pedestrian and cycle movement as well as allowing
88
stopping and parking of vehicles (Schermers 1999, Schermers & van Vliet 2001).
89
90
The extent of an area-wide 30 km/h implementation in relation to linear 50 km/h traffic routes is
91
shown in Figure 1. The 30 km/h zone can be applied to an entire activity centre boundary that
92
incorporates pedestrian and shared zones (Nogues 2009).
93
94
95
Figure 1. Area-wide 30 km/h speed zone implementation (Based on Nogues 2009)
96
97
Choices of implementation techniques using signs and traffic calming measures
98
99
The findings from the literature review reveals a wide range of implementation techniques from
100
using either signs only, or traffic calming measures only, or a combination of both measures.
101
Consistent with the Sustainable Safety concept (Austroads 2005) where speed limits often require
102
engineering support to encourage compliance, many 30 km/h (or 20 mph) speed zones in the UK
103
and Europe utilise both speed limit signs and traffic calming measures to limit high speeds, and
104
reduce speed differences and vehicle conflicts.
105
106
The following sections discuss the two unique implementation techniques of signs only and self-
107
explaining roads (traffic calming measures only).
108
109
Traffic Signs Only
110
111
Setting 30 km/h speed limits by using posted speed signs only has been evaluated by a number of
112
jurisdictions. This method has a cost advantage when compared to the approach of constructing
113
physical traffic calming measures. However, its main disadvantage is the effectiveness on the
114
reduction of vehicle speeds and crashes.
115
116
Large-scale implementations of low speed limits using signs only were trialled and implemented in
117
a number of towns and cities in the United Kingdom, including Bristol, Edinburgh, Oxford,
118
Portsmouth and Warrington (20’s Plenty for Us 2017). The UK study concluded that signed only
119
speed limits are most appropriate for areas where vehicle speeds are already low (Department for
120

4 of 14
Transport 2013). In many cases, a 30 km/h speed roundel road marking was also used as a repeater
121
sign in addition to post-mounted speed signs to indicate the speed limit.
122
123
Signs-only speed limits were used in Alberta, Canada where the legal speed limits around school
124
and playground zones were lowered from 50 km/h to 30 km/h in 2009 (Tay 2009). The Belgian
125
government also lowered the speed limits in school zones to 30 km/h in Flanders (Dreesen & Nuyts
126
2007). However, the speed limits around school zones are not in full-time operation in Alberta, and
127
only some are full-time in Flanders.
128
129
Traffic Calming Measures Only (Self-Explaining Roads)
130
131
The Woonerf concept was originally proposed in the Netherlands in the 1960s with the design
132
emphasis on creating an environment in a residential area where vulnerable users can safely share
133
the street with motorists (Karndacharuk 2014). Road design features, including a level, shared
134
surface, traffic calming measures and streetscape elements for pedestrian staying activities, are
135
employed to urge the driver not to drive faster than walking speeds (Karndacharuk et al. 2014).
136
Implemented in this fashion, Woonerf streets do not require sign-posted speed limits to explicitly
137
remind the motorist of safe vehicle speeds.
138
139
A similar approach to the Woonerf is Self-Explaining Roads (SER). Also known as a naked street,
140
the SER encourages the driver to adopt safe behaviour and speeds in response to the visual
141
appearance of the roads (Mackie et al. 2013, Theeuwes & Godthelp 1995, Wegman et al. 2005).
142
The SER approach can be applied across all road categories as long as the road design and user
143
behaviour match the intended function and the look and feel of the roads are consistent within each
144
road category.
145
146
In the Guide to Traffic Management (Austroads 2016b), the SER concept is recognised as
147
psychological traffic calming within the local area traffic management (LATM) philosophy, where
148
increased uncertainty by design helps drivers to slow down to negotiate the area and become more
149
aware of the surrounding rather than simply moving through the road space.
150
151
Accordingly, McTiernan et al. (2015), suggested that the wider application of the SER approach
152
should be considered in the Australasian context to support improved safety and self-regulation of
153
speed by drivers. A trial of SER was undertaken in Auckland, New Zealand (Charlton et al. 2010).
154
Two types of road hierarchy were chosen – local and collector roads. A 30 km/h design speed was
155
applied to the local roads along with the design to reduce forward visibility and to incorporate
156
improved landscaping, community spaces and threshold treatments. Road markings and signage
157
were also removed.
158
159
Stakeholder Consultation
160
161
Consultation with Australasian transport agencies at both state and local levels was undertaken in
162
August and September 2017 to obtain views and experience on 30 km/h speed limits and zones
163
(Karndacharuk & McTiernan 2017). The task comprised a short email survey asking for feedback on:
164
• Design, planning and implementation experience
165
• Outcome and lessons learnt from an evaluation study
166
• Key issues/complaints, including community perceptions.
167
The majority of the consultation messages and requests for information were submitted to the road
168
and traffic agencies using the contact details from their website or via an online customer contact
169

5 of 14
form. A follow-up task of a telephone discussion and an examination of relevant documentation
170
available on the agency’s official websites was also conducted.
171
172
Table 1 presents the outcome of consultation with each of the Australian and New Zealand
173
jursidictions. While none of the road transport authorities in Australia that responded to the survey
174
requests opposed lowering the speed limit to 30 km/h in appropriate locations; however, at the time
175
only four jurisdictions (i.e. ACT, NSW, Tasmania and Victoria) have either planned or implemented
176
30 km/h speed zones. Collectively, the 30 km/h area has been or is being applied, albeit on a relatively
177
small scale, to school zones, activity centre areas and residential streets in Australia.
178
179
In New Zealand, the majority of the 30 km/h speed zones are implemented on an area-wide basis.
180
More importantly, all the NZ local government jurisdictions under investigation have prioritised the
181
use of 30 km/h zones in the CBD and mixed-use areas.
182
183
Table 1. Consultation response from transport agencies in Australia and New Zealand
184
185
Jurisdiction
Feedback on 30 km/h Implementation
Response
Experience
Discussion
ACT
Yes
Yes
▪ As part of an Active Streets pilot program (ACT
Government 2017), a 30 km/h speed limit was trialled at two
primary schools (out of four schools under the pilot scheme).
▪ The 30 km/h school zone was considered an infrastructure
intervention to promote safe routes to school via active
travel.
NSW
Yes
Yes
▪ The 30 km/h speed limit was applied on Druitt Street
primarily in response to a fatal crash. The other 30 km/h
zone within the boundary of the City of Sydney (2017) is in
the Royal Botanic Garden.
▪ The general consensus within RMS is that the 30km/h limit
on Druitt Street is not successful as it appears anecdotally
that most drivers are either unaware or choose to ignore the
speed limit.
▪ A trialled 30km/h limit is suggested in a street environment
that is obviously different from the standard (higher speed)
road environment in order for drivers to feel compelled (be
that by geometry, traffic calming or carriageway widths) to
drive in accordance with the lower speed limit.
NT
Yes
No
▪ Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics is not
aware of a 30 km/h implementation in the Northern
Territory.
Qld
Yes
No
▪ Department of Transport and Main Roads support, in
principle, the use of 30 km/h to improve road safety in an
appropriate location.
▪ At the time of writing, there was a plan to implement 30
km/h speed limits across the Brisbane CBD.
SA
No
No
▪ No response from Department of Planning, Transport and
Infrastructure has been provided within the project
timeframe.

6 of 14
Jurisdiction
Feedback on 30 km/h Implementation
Response
Experience
Discussion
Tas
Yes
Yes
▪ 30 km/h zones, forming part of a streetscape upgrade, have
been implemented within the City of Hobart to support the
Central Bus Interchange.
▪ A 30 km/h speed limit was implemented in 2010 along
Hobart waterfront at the Franklin Wharf under the
responsibility of TasPorts. A crash data analysis of the
before (2003-2009) and after (2011-2017) showed:
− 39% reduction of total recorded crashes (from 69 to 42)
− No serious and fatal injury post implementation whereas
there was one serious injury crash in the before period.
Vic
Yes
Yes
▪ Yarra City Council (2017) is planning to implement a 12
month trial of area-wide 30 km/h speed limits on residential
streets in Fitzroy and Collingwood.
▪ Recognising the benefits of reducing speed limits to 40 km/h
on all residential streets in Yarra, the 30 km/h trial forms
part of Council’s commitment to creating safer streets for all
road users.
▪ Based on the review and discussions with the UK’s
Nottingham City Council and the 20s Plenty for Us program,
the following key findings are identified in a pre-trial
evaluation (Fildes et al. 2017):
− There is a need to carefully stage the introduction of a
trial with on-going consultation with key stakeholders
and community engagement to maximise its success.
− Additional signage to be placed at critical threshold entry
points along the trial boundary or where there is no
change with new speed limit in order to alert local
travellers of the trial in progress and to keep stressing
road the road safety message
▪ VicRoads is in principle support the use of 30 km/h speed
limits in Victoria. To ensure speed compliance, community
support and acceptance is considered an important factor in
the planning and implementation process.
WA
Yes
No
▪ There was no record of a 30 km/h zone implementation in
the Main Roads Western Australia database.
▪ The City of Vincent asked to trial a 40 km/h area speed
zone, but it has not been introduced as of yet.

7 of 14
Jurisdiction
Feedback on 30 km/h Implementation
Response
Experience
Discussion
NZ
Yes
Yes
▪ A 30 km/h speed limit environment was implemented in the
following two locations in Auckland before 2010.
− Queen St in Auckland CBD. The speed within the zone is
largely controlled by congestion and the closely spaced
signalised intersections. Traffic signal phasings are also
set with generous time for pedestrian, which helps
restraining traffic volumes and speeds.
− Orewa Blvd in Orewa town centre. 30 km/h was
originally implemented as a temporary speed limit. The
design of the zone was styled similar to a shared zone
with a texture, level surface (no kerb). There has been
speed compliance issues due to the need to regain
sufficient width for over dimension vehicles.
▪ A recent area-wide 30 km/h zone is progressively being
implemented in Wynyard Quarter and Viaduct Harbour on
Auckland waterfront. Traffic calming measures (e.g. raised
platform and special surfaces) are employed to support a
credible low speed environment.
▪ With the recent changes to the speed limit guidelines and
legislation, Auckland Transport expect to roll out more 30
km/h areas in the next few years, particularly in the CBD
and town centres across the region.
▪ The majority of streets in the Christchurch CBD have a 30
km/h speed limit, which was imposed through the Recovery
Plan post 2011 earthquake. A large proportion of the 30
km/h zones do not have the environmental controls (e.g.
traffic calming) that were originally intended to occur at the
same time as the 30 km/h implementation.
▪ The average speed is in the order of 35-40 km/h even with
traffic signal coordination for 30 km/h progression.
▪ The 30 km/h speed limit has not been well received by the
community, although much of the negativity was directed at
a few roads due to their arterial nature and the lack of
physical changes to the streets.
▪ Christchurch City Council is of the view that regular
repeater road markings, which were recently allowed
through the change in NZ legislation, would support the 30
km/h operation (by improving conspicuity) along with self-
enforcing traffic calming measures.
▪ A 30 km/h limit was implemented in 2010 in the Hamilton
CBD as part of streetscape improvement in order to improve
pedestrian safety. The monitoring of speeds and safety
performance showed the work was successful, which paved
the way for more introduction in 2013.

8 of 14
Jurisdiction
Feedback on 30 km/h Implementation
Response
Experience
Discussion
▪ Started in 2009, Wellington City Council have been
progressively implementing 30 km/h limits in the CBD and
shopping centres (16 location completed) to support
pedestrian and cycling activity. The lower speed limit haven
been shown to reduce crash rates.
186
Safe System Analysis
187
188
The Safe System concept recognises that humans can only tolerate limited kinetic energy exchange
189
before death or serious injury occurs. Safe System principles aim to manage the energy exchange
190
via the four pillars of safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles and safe people to eliminate death and
191
serious injury as a consequence of a road crash. A fifth pillar, involving emergency response and
192
post-crash care is often cited internationally (Austroads 2016c). A Safe System analysis, shown in
193
Table 2, considers the impact of the 30 km/h speed zone implementation against the five Safe
194
System pillars.
195
196
197

9 of 14
Table 2. Safe System analysis of 30 km/h implementation
198
199
Safe System Pillar
Assessment Response
Safer roads and
roadsides
▪ With an emphasis of reducing pedestrian deaths and serious injuries,
roads and roadsides should be designed to incorporate traffic calming
measures, especially in areas where existing speeds are much higher
than 30 km/h, to gain compliance with lower speed limit.
▪ Other street and urban design approaches such as provision for the
disabled, appropriate lighting as well as Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design should be considered in order to:
− reduce the risk of crashes occurring,
− lessen the severity of injury if a crash does occur
− encourage safe behaviour by users
Safer vehicles
▪ The rapid development of emerging technologies of connected and
autonomous vehicles (CAVs) provides an opportunity to promote the
use of safer vehicles in crash avoidance and protection for both
occupants and people outside the vehicle.
▪ The deployment of CAVs and in-vehicle intelligent systems will assist
in ensuring the compliance of 30 km/h speed limits and zones and
enabling automated protective systems for vulnerable users when crash
risk is elevated.
Safe road users
▪ In acknowledgment of the fact that people make mistakes and are
vulnerable, lowering speed limits to 30 km/h in a highly pedestrianised
area will reduce crash energies, and provide a factor of safety in terms
of increased driver field of vision, driver’s reaction time and breaking
distance.
▪ Education campaigns and stakeholder engagement should focus on:
− reminding that a successful 30 km/h implementation is a shared
responsibility of everyone, including road users.
− encouraging safe, consistent and compliant behaviour through well-
informed and educated road users.
▪ Enforcement and sanctions are critical to effective implementation,
particularly from the outset.
Safer speeds
▪ Based on the literature review findings, a maximum limit of 30 km/h
should be applied principally in an area with high pedestrian activity to
manage fatality and serious injury risks to more vulnerable road users.
▪ Credible and consistent 30 km/h speed limit implementation is
fundamental to encourage road users to obey and drive to conditions.
Post-crash response
and trauma
treatment
▪ The need for access by emergency and medical services should be
taken into account during the planning, design and implementation of
30 km/h speed limits and zones.
200
Implementation Principles
201
202
The following guiding principles are proposed to be employed in the process of implementing a
203
30 km/h speed zone in order to maximise the potential for the zone to operate successfully by
204
ensuring commonality and legibility for the end user. Table 3 shows 12 principles, which can
205

10 of 14
generally be categorised into three groups to address the why, where and how of a potential
206
implementation of 30 km/h as an appropriate, credible and enforceable speed management option.
207
208
Table 3. Principles for 30 km/h speed limit implementation
209
210
Principle
Discussion
The ‘Why’
1
Embrace the Safe System
approach for harm
minimisation.
▪ In a location with a large number of vulnerable road users
and possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, a Safe System
approach supports the use of speed limits no greater than 30
km/h to manage the potential for fatal and serious injury
risk, especially for pedestrians.
▪ A small reduction in mean speed can result in a substantial
decrease in FSI crashes.
▪ While a 40 km/h speed zone already provides a degree of
support to the harm minimisation approach in high
pedestrian activity areas, a 30 km/h environment,
implemented in a consistent and credible manner, is
expected to further reduce road trauma and social costs of
FSIs.
2
Enable a more balanced
approach through the
creation of a 30 km/h
speed environment by
taking into account multi-
modal and multi-
functional objectives for
the use of the same road
space.
▪ Roads and speed environments are categorised based on the
functions they perform in the context of an integrated road
network and land use activities.
▪ Lowering a speed environment from 40 to 30 km/h will
improve the mobility and accessibility of non-motorised
users as well as enhance environmental amenity within the
network and of the surrounding land uses.
The ‘Where’
3
Prioritise a location with
strategic place significance
in the movement and place
framework.
▪ The classification, taking into account factors such as road
design and traffic volumes, is a key input into calculating
safe and appropriate travel speeds. The role of road space as
a destination (place function) is recognised in the Guide to
Traffic Management (Austroads 2016a).
▪ 30 km/h speed limits and zones can be prioritised based on
this movement and place functions within the road network.
4
Target activity centres and
selective residential areas
with a high level presence
of vulnerable road users.
▪ Based on the movement and place framework, the initial
focus of employing 30 km/h limits can be activity centres
and other high-risk urban areas with high volumes of
pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
The ‘How’
5
Focus on an area-wide
implementation in
homogeneous road
sections.
▪ Regulatory signs are required at entry points to the
designated area.
▪ Attention must be paid to ensure these additional signs (and
pavement markings) do not present new hazards to the
environment (e.g. issue with skid resistance and impeding
sight lines).

11 of 14
Principle
Discussion
6
Employ traffic calming
measures for speed
management and control.
▪ Incorporating traffic calming in the 30 km/h implementation
at the outset is critical for speed management, especially in
an area with existing mean speeds significantly higher than
30 km/h.
▪ While it is relatively costly to retrofit the existing higher-
speed streets with traffic calming measures, the SER design
of a new road network in greenfield areas can readily
incorporate local area traffic management devices to self-
regulate speeds.
7
Utilise a mean speed as a
primary measure of actual
traffic speed for a road
section.
▪ The conventional use of 85th percentile speed to determine
speed limits is challenged by the arguments that:
− Many drivers are ill equipped to judge road safety risks,
and to determine appropriate speeds for the environment.
− Many people tend to drive above the speed limit, which
gradually increase the 85th percentile speed over time
− Many individuals seek to drive faster than the average
speed in effect to self-affirm their image of better than
average drivers
▪ Setting a speed limit based on a mean speed will achieve a
safe distribution of speeds at a lower level than that of the
85th percentile speed. This is more suitable for a lower
speed zone of 30 km/h where (vehicle) mobility is not a
primary function.
▪ The aim of the 30 km/h zone implementation and monitoring
is to ensure a mean speed is appropriate to the prevailing
road and traffic environment.
▪ The use of mean operating speed as a primary measure is
reflected in the UK’s 2013 Setting Local Speed Limits
circular and NZ’s 2017 Setting of Speed Limits rule.
8
Consider residual crash
risks associated with road,
roadside and traffic
characteristics.
▪ Lowing a speed limit to 30 km/h in itself reduces crash
severity and likelihood.
▪ Nonetheless, there are residual risks associated with the road
environment (e.g. road geometry, roadside hazards, traffic
volume, traffic mix and presence of vulnerable users) that
may warrant additional measures to be included as part of a
30 km/h implementation.
9
Manage the impact of the
30 km/h implementation in
school zones.
▪ There is no reason why the maximum speed environment for
school zones should not be reduced to 30 km/h during school
hours, except perhaps for major thoroughfares.
▪ Lowing a general (default) urban speed limit from 50 km/h
to 30 km/h would render a school zone designation
redundant.
▪ Any safety risk due to children’s movement unpredictability
can be addressed using the flashing lights as well as school
zone signage and marking but as advisory measures instead
of a specific enforceable zone.

12 of 14
Principle
Discussion
10
Set technical criteria that
are consistent with the
requirements in the
existing guidelines.
▪ The following criteria should be developed:
− A minimum length to avoid too many changes of speed
limit along a route or an area.
− Repeater signs or markings to serve as an indicator of the
speed limit and a reminder for drivers to check whether
they are travelling at the maximum safe speed.
− Specific provisions for temporary or part-time 30 km/h
limits
▪ Once the impact and performance of the 30 km/h
implementation is fully understood, the existing criteria of
the speed zoning guidelines may require an update to reflect
contemporary practice. For example, if a SER design was
proven to be successful in speed management, a requirement
for regulatory signage may be relaxed.
11
Establish an on-going
evaluation and monitoring
process.
▪ An on-going performance evaluation informs policies,
guides the investigation of investment options, and assists in
estimating the return on investment.
▪ The speed limit review is an iterative process to keep up
with a change in road and land-use environments.
12
Engage key stakeholders
and communities for
support.
▪ Community support and acceptance is fundamental in the
success and compliance of any 30 km/h zone
implementation.
▪ Education and communication of the benefits of 30 km/h
speed zones is also vital in gaining greater community
acceptance.
211
Conclusions
212
213
Guiding principles for implementing 30 km/h speed limits and zones have been developed based on
214
the outcome of a literature review, a consultation survey of Australasian practitioners in road
215
transport agencies and a Safe System analysis of setting a 30 km/h speed limit for harm
216
minimisation.
217
218
It is found that the 30 km/h speed limits and zones have been utilised widely in various international
219
jurisdictions outside Australia and New Zealand. The 30 km/h practices identified employ speed
220
management techniques of traffic calming measures, self-explaining roads and regulatory signage to
221
influence safe travelling speeds within the designated 30 km/h zones.
222
223
Based on the philosophy of the Safe System approach, which reaffirms an absolute priority to avoid
224
death and serious injury, 30 km/h has been recognised as a safe and appropriate speed limit in an
225
area where there is a high level of vulnerable road users present and a potential for conflict with
226
vehicle traffic. The evidence of 30 km/h practice in Australia and New Zealand highlights the area
227
of focus for the 30 km/h implementation - that is, to prioritise the activity centre areas in an
228
integrated area-wide approach.
229
230
Moving forward would require the integration of the principles into the regulatory speed zoning
231
guidelines to enable a broader introduction of 30 km/h limits and zones. In the longer term, an
232
emphasis should be placed on having 30 km/h as a default urban speed limit in higher-order activity
233

13 of 14
centres (town centres or denser) and designated residential areas serviced by the lowest order roads
234
since there are the areas of greatest pedestrian activity.
235
236
References
237
238
20’s Plenty for Us. (2017). 20 mph places. Retrieved from
239
http://www.20splenty.org/20mph_places.
240
ACT Government. (2017). Active Streets pilot: summary report. ACT Government, Canberra: ACT
241
Government.
242
Austroads. (2005). Balance between harm reduction and mobility in setting speed limits: a
243
feasibility study. Sydney, NSW: Austroads.
244
Austroads. (2014a) Guide to traffic management: part 5: road management, 2nd edn, AGTM05-14.
245
Sydney, NSW: Austroads.
246
Austroads. (2014b). Model national guidelines for setting speed limits at high-risk locations.
247
Sydney, NSW: Austroads.
248
Austroads. (2016a). Guide to traffic management: part 4: network management. Sydney, NSW:
249
Austroads.
250
Austroads. (2016b). Guide to traffic management: part 8: local area traffic management. Sydney,
251
NSW: Austroads.
252
Austroads. (2016c). Safe system roads for local government. Sydney, NSW: Austroads.
253
Brindle, E. (1992). Local street speed management in Australia – is it “traffic calming”?. Accident
254
Analysis and Prevention, 24(1), 29-38.
255
Charlton, S.G., Mackie, H.W., Baas, P.H., Hay, K., Menezes, M. & Dixon, C. (2010). Using
256
endemic road features to create self-explaining roads and reduce vehicle speeds. Accident
257
Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1989–98.
258
City of Sydney. (2017). Speed limits. Retrieved from
259
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/community/health-and-safety/road-safety/riders/speed-
260
limits.
261
Department for Transport. (2013). Setting local speed limits. London, UK: DfT.
262
Dreesen, A. & Nuyts, E. (2007). Lowering the speed limit to 30 km/h in school zones: effects on
263
speed: analysis of data of 11 school zones in Flanders. Diepenbeek, Belgium: Policy
264
Research Centre for Traffic Safety.
265
Fildes, B., Exley, J. & Lawrence, B. (2017). City of Yarra – 30 km/h speed limit: pre-trial final
266
report. Clayton, Vic: Monash University Accident Research Centre.
267
International Transport Forum. (2012). Pedestrian safety, urban space and health. Paris, France:
268
OECD Publishing.
269
Karndacharuk, A. (2014). The Development of a multi-faceted evaluation framework of shared
270
spaces. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
271

14 of 14
Karndacharuk, A., & McTiernan, D. (2017). Review of 30 km/h speed zone implemenation. Vermont
272
South, Victoria: ARRB.
273
Karndacharuk, A., Wilson, D., & Dunn, R. (2014). A review of the evolution of shared (street)
274
space concepts in urban environments. Transport Reviews, 34(2), 190-220.
275
Koorey, G. (2011). Implementing lower speeds in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Institution
276
of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) transportation conference. Auckland, New
277
Zealand.
278
Mackie, H.W., Charlton, S.G., Baas, P.H. & Villasenor, P.C. (2013). Road user behaviour changes
279
following a self-explaining roads intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 742–50.
280
McKibbin, D. (2014). Impact of 20mph speed limits. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Northern Ireland
281
Assembly, Research and Information Service.
282
McTiernan, D., Vengadasalam, G. & Croft, P. (2015). Towards the harmonisation of best practice
283
speed limits. Vermont South, Victoria: ARRB Group.
284
Nogues P. (2009). Villes 30: villes vivables, villes cyclables. Retrieved from
285
https://ville30.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/villes-30-velocite-101.pdf.
286
Schermers, G. (1999). Sustainable safety: a preventative road safety strategy for the future.
287
Rotterdam, Netherlands: AVV Transport Research Centre, Ministry of Transport.
288
Schermers, G. & van Vliet, P. (2001). Sustainable safety: a preventative road safety strategy for the
289
future. Rotterdam, Netherlands: AVV Transport Research Centre, Ministry of Transport.
290
SWOV. (2010). Zones 30: urban residential areas. Leidschendam, the Netherlands: SWOV
291
Institute for Road Safety Research.
292
Tay, R. (2009). Speed compliance in school and playground zones. ITE Journal, 79(3), 36–8.
293
Theeuwes, J. & Godthelp, H. (1995). Self-explaining roads. Safety Science, 19, 217–225.
294
Wegman, F., Dijkstra, A., Schermers, G. & van Vliet, P. (2005). Sustainable safety in the
295
Netherlands: the vision, the implementation and the safety effects. Leidschendam,
296
Netherlands: SWOV.
297
Yarra City Council. (2017). Yarra to introduce 30 km/h speed trial. Retrieved from
298
https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/news/2017/09/05/yarra-to-introduce-30kmh-speed-trial.
299
300