Road safety management capacity review


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Road safety management capacity review

  1. 1. Initial road safety activity – Road SafetyManagement Capacity ReviewEast Java/ Western Australia Twinning ProgramProvince of East JavaPresentation by Eric Howard, Tri Tjahjono and Tony Bliss19th March 2013, Surabaya
  2. 2. Global development priority• Improving global road safety has become linked with the broader vision of sustainable development and priorities addressing poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.• This is in line with the concept of country development which has shifted from a narrow focus on income and spending to include education and health, and social, cultural and political participation. 2
  3. 3. Global development priority (cont’d) • The overarching goals of development are to foster an investment climate conducive to increased growth, productivity, and employment, and to empower and invest in people so that they are included in the process. • In low and middle-income countries the sheer scale of health losses from road crashes makes road safety a development priority. • Of particular concern is that road deaths and injuries are a growing crisis for young people; especially young men. 3
  4. 4. Global development priority (cont’d) • Global Burden of Disease findings for 2010 indicate that for the global population road deaths were the 8th leading cause of death: • 1 – 4 years 9th • 5 – 9 years 4th • 10 – 14 years 2nd • 15 – 19 years 1st • 20 – 24 years 1st • 25 – 29 years 2nd • 50 – 55 years 10th Source: IHME (2012). Global Burden of Disease 2010 leading causes and risks by region heat map, Institute of Health Metrics, Seattle. 4
  5. 5. Global development priority (cont’d) • Without sustained new initiatives, more than 75million deaths and 750 million serious injuries could be anticipated with some certainty over the first 50 years of the 21st century. • This can be compared with an estimated 1% probability that over the same period more than 40 million people could be killed in mega-wars or in a virulent influenza epidemic and around 4 million people by volcanoes or tsunamis. 5
  6. 6. Projected global deaths 5 World Millions 4.5 Do nothing: no lag model 4 Do nothing: 1 lag model Policy era: no lag model Annual Global RTI Deaths 3.5 Policy era: 1 lag model 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Source: GRSF work in progress. Refer also to Bhalla, K, Shahraz, S, Naghavi, M, and Murray, C (2008). Estimating thepotential impact of safety policies on road traffic death rates in developing countries, poster presented at 9th WorldConference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, Merida, Mexico, March 2008. 6
  7. 7. Fatal discontinuitiesProbabilities of fatal discontinuities during the first half of the 21st century Source: Smil, V (2008). Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years, MIT Press. 7
  8. 8. Decade of Action goal • An ambitious goal to stabilize and then reduce the forecast level of road traffic fatalities in low and middle-income countries by 2020 has been set for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011 – 2020. • Achieving this goal will save around 5 million lives and avoid 50 million serious injuries, for a social benefit of US $3 trillion. Nearly 60% of the lives saved and serious injuries avoided will be in the World Bank’s East Asia Pacific and South Asia regions alone. 8
  9. 9. Co-benefits of integrated initiatives • There has also been a growing recognition in transport policy formulation of the need to align road safety priorities with other higher priority sustainable development goals, especially those for urban areas, to capture the associated co- benefits of integrated initiatives. • For example, the provision of safer infrastructure facilities to promote increased walking and cycling and measures to reduce vehicle speeds will also result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution, greater energy security, and improved physical wellbeing. 9
  10. 10. Implications for Indonesia and East Java • Indonesia and East Java are facing a growing crisis of death and injury on their roads with motorcyclists and pedestrians being particularly vulnerable. • It must be expected that with rapid motorization road fatalities and injuries will increase per capita over the coming decades, unless concerted action is taken (F/P = V/P x F/V). • Potentially effective interventions can be identified, such as more protective infrastructure, lower speeds, safer vehicles etc. But the issues – as identified by the capacity review findings – are more pressing at the institutional level. 10
  11. 11. Implications for Indonesia and East Java (cont’d) • Substantial resources have been committed to improving the mobility of East Java’s citizens and central questions that must be addressed concern the level of safety desired across the road network and which agencies are responsible and accountable for this? • In answering these questions it is useful to consider the road safety management framework used for the capacity review. 11
  12. 12. Road safety management system 12
  13. 13. Results focus • In the framework presented what has been termed ‘results focus’ is the primary, overarching institutional management function. • This addresses the issue of leadership, strategy and ‘ownership’. What are you trying to achieve? How are you going to get there? Who is accountable for this? • The other six identified functions contribute to the achievement of the desired results. How do you coordinate this? Legislate for this? Fund this? And so on. 13
  14. 14. ‘Ownership’ and authority • Form should follow function and there is no best practice model for institutional structures. • In best practice countries a coherent machinery of government with a well-defined focus on results is evident, where participating agencies have clearly mandated safety goals and responsibilities and work purposefully together under the direction of the lead agency to achieve them. • Without this results focus, institutional ‘ownership’ and authority to act the problem of improving poor road safety performance cannot be solved. 14
  15. 15. ‘Ownership’ and authority (cont’d) • A coordination body will only be effective when there is an accountable lead agency that ‘owns’ and uses it to mobilize resources and align multi-agency partnerships in pursuit of agreed results. • A high-level working group is required to support the strategic decision-making and directing role of the coordination body, and this working group is usually resourced and sustained by a road safety secretariat/department in the lead agency. • The capacity review findings highlight these issues. 15
  16. 16. Evolution of results focus 1950s the road user – ‘blame the victim’ 1960 – 70s systemic interventions – the ‘Haddon matrix’. 1980 – 90s targeted national plans. 90s onwards ‘Safe System’ approach. The Safe System approach is being promoted as best practice to low and middle-income countries, in stark contrast to the fatalistic pathway of high-income countries during most of the 20th century. 16
  17. 17. Managing risk (1) Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Road Administration 17
  18. 18. Managing risk (2) Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Road Administration 18
  19. 19. Managing risk (3) Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Road Administration 19
  20. 20. Managing risk (4)Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Road Administration 20
  21. 21. Innovation and creativity • High-income countries continue to make significant investments in road safety and have set themselves ambitious fatality and injury reduction goals. • In following this pathway Indonesia and East Java must seek solutions that reflect their unique safety priorities and address their unprecedented rates of motorization and road user vulnerability . • Huge investments will be made to improve road transport infrastructure and services over the coming decades and sustained innovation and creativity will be required to do this more safely. 21
  22. 22. Road Safety in East Java:Review of Road Safety Management Capacity• Supported by AusAID through IndII, plus in-kind support from Department of Transport, East Java and Office of Road Safety, Western Australia.• Being conducted through Provinsi Dinas Perhubungan by road safety experts, Eric Howard, Dr.Tri Tjahjono and Tony Bliss 22
  23. 23. Outline• East Java/ Western Australia Twinning Agreement• Review tasks and workshop aims• Review process and findings• Short and Longer term strategy• Proposal for initial activity for short term  knowledge transfer  management arrangements  intervention priorities  demonstration projects  policy reviews• Next steps• Discussion 23
  24. 24. East Java/ Western Australia TwinningAgreementRoad safety capacity review – the initial road safetyproject under the existing East Java/ Western Australiagovernments twinning agreement.Commenced - November 2012 24
  25. 25. The review tasks•Assess road safety management capacity in East Java against good practice• Advise on a short (and long) term investment strategy for road safety in East Java• Reflect back to stakeholders on basis of information provided 25
  26. 26. Aims of workshop• Brief you on our findings to date• Seek your response and input• Discuss any changes to proposals 26
  27. 27. Review Process and FindingsEast Java Road Safety Management Capacity Review 2013 27
  28. 28. Review process• Extensive meetings December 2012/ January 2013, with agencies• Face to face meetings wide range of stakeholders ( > 70 people) included:  Assistant Governor, Economic Development  Key provincial departments - Transport, PU, Planning, Education  National agencies (Traffic Police, DGH, Jasa Raharja)  Local governments  University Transport Departments  Industry  Western Australia Office of Road Safety  WA Trade Commissioner• Review conducted against standard World Bank checklists 28
  29. 29. Review process• Review process - based on that applied by World Bank in many middle income countries to assist them to:  identify major road safety issues;  identify the capacity issues within organisations (knowledge and resources and impediments to change to achieve road safety improvement); and across govt.; and  develop an investment strategy for short term (seeking to strengthen capacity through doing – usually demonstration projects) and in outline for the longer term. 29
  30. 30. The road safety management pyramid Results Interventions Institutional management functions 30
  31. 31. Review of institutional arrangementsOur task was to review capacity for: • Leadership to achieve results ? • Funded coordination across levels of government and between provincial agencies? • Legislation to meet road safety task ? • Funding and resource allocation ? • Promotion at high level ? • Monitoring and evaluation ? • Research and knowledge transfer ? 31
  32. 32. Review of interventionsTo review scope and safety quality of standardsand the levels of compliance for: • the road network ? • the vehicle fleet ? • road users including the most vulnerable ? • access to the emergency medical system and rehabilitation of victims ? 32
  33. 33. Review of resultsTo review if data is available for: • socio-economic costs ? • numbers of deaths and serious injuries (including by user and crash type?) • average speeds, helmet use, seat belt use etc. ? • quantities of interventions e.g. Numbers of seat belt checks, red light running hours of checks, speed checks etc. ? 33
  34. 34. Road Safety – International and Indonesianperspectives• 2011 to 2020 – United Nations Decade of Action for Road Safety• Indonesian National Road Safety Action Plan (NRSAP) published in 2011, (based on UN Decade of Action), for period to 2035.• Targets reductions in fatalities of 50% by 2020 and 80% by 2035, (from 2010 baseline) 34
  35. 35. Findings: institutional management• Road safety management across levels of government and within provincial government yet to be established• Leadership role and coordination not yet in place• Little focus on achieving results• Serious lack of human and financial resources in road safety across provincial and national government. Exceptions in some Kota• Crash data to guide targeting of action not available• Unsurprisingly, interventions are limited in scope and fragmented and outcomes are challenging 35
  36. 36. Findings: institutional management (2)• Indonesian National Road Safety Action Plan (NRSAP), 2011 sets challenging targets for Indonesia• Little awareness of Plan in East Java• Plan set out explicitly “to serve as a guideline for Provincial governments (in order for them) to elaborate steps of road safety management in their respective territories**”• Provincial action plan yet to be developed for East Java showing how this (or any other) target might be delivered at provincial level.**National Road Safety Master Plan, Republic of Indonesia, 2011 36
  37. 37. Findings: interventionsRoads: Safety quality of network is not high• East Java’s national and provincial (and many kabupaten) road networks could be considered high risk• Right of ways extremely constrained, alignment improvement options very limited, little access or illegal use controls• Intersection controls lacking• Safety provisioning for motorcyclists and pedestrians poor, especially where trucks high % of traffic.• Costs of improving safety of infrastructure on national and provincial network substantial• Poor speed management and limited urban area safety management• Lack of understanding of differences in crash risk at network wide level 37
  38. 38. Findings: interventionsVehicles:Vehicle mix and safety of design has profound effecton safety:• Trucks and buses mixing with motorcycles is high risk especially on higher speed roads• No constraints on any vehicle type travelling anywhere day or night• Safety quality of fleet needs to be understood and improved: new and existing (different issues)• No promotion of consumer information e.g vehicle safety ratings 38
  39. 39. Findings: InterventionsUsers: Rules established but not yet deterringunsafe behaviours - through combined publicityand enforcement:e.g • excess speed • non use of seat belts • non use of crash helmets • non compliance with red lights • not giving way to pedestrians at crossings • unsafe overtaking by buses and trucks and other vehicles 39
  40. 40. Findings: InterventionsUsers (2):• Enforcement effectiveness limited by factors including justice system constraints• Road safety policing requires substanial ongoing enforcment effort, with warnings and offences issued• Pro-active enforcement by Police targeting major fatal crash related illegal behaviour factors - as a regular high intensity effort (in time and across the Province with substantial resource) - would deliver major fatality reductions 40
  41. 41. Findings: interventionsEmergency medical system:• Injury data not available through medical system• Lack of focus and resource on road injury prevention• Limited capacity of emergency medical response• Constraints on rapid admission to care 41
  42. 42. Findings: challenging results - 2011• High numbers of deaths: 5,499 in 2011• High death rates: 14.52 (per 100,000 pop.) 4.90 (per 10,000 vehicles)• Rates over three (3) times as high (per 100,000 population) and over 7 times as high (per 10,000 vehicles) as Asia – Pacific’s best 42
  43. 43. Findings: challenging results• Population fatality rate (population) is 10% higher than for all Indonesia• High socio-economic costs: estimated at 2.5% of Provincial GDP - which is $ US 2.3 billion.• One fifth of all deaths (2011) were in Greater Surabaya, 7% of all deaths were in Surabaya City 43
  44. 44. Findings: challenging results- fatalities by local government area 44
  45. 45. Findings: challenging results- fatality rate per population by local government area 45
  46. 46. Findings: challenging resultsWhat locations to investigate as priority in terms offatality outcomes?Four municipalities in top 10 of fatalities and within top 10of fatality rates per population in East Java –where earlyreview of road crash fatalities would be warranted, are: • Banyuwangi • Pasuruan • Nganjuk • Lamongan 46
  47. 47. Findings: challenging resultsAll crashes by age of involvement 47
  48. 48. Findings: challenging resultsCentral Java Fatalities by road userDetailed police collected crash data from IRSMS system beingintroduced nationally - available for 2011 for Central JavaProvince – shows for Central Java in 2011: • 50% of fatalities were motorcyclists • 22% of fatalities were pedestrians • 25% of all road fatalities were 16 and 17 year old malesTherefore 16 and 17 year old males (usually motorcycle riders)should be a focus of road safety efforts.Experience in East Java Province likely to be similar. 48
  49. 49. Findings: challenging resultsEast Java unlicensed driving / riding• East Java license status for crash involved riders and drivers: 49
  50. 50. Future outcomes without new action ?• East Java rapidly motorising – more deaths and injuries will occur unless action is taken• The loss of main wage earner in crashes will push more families into poverty, with higher risks for children• Substantial economic costs of lost productive years of human capacity will continue to increase 50
  51. 51. Review findings: strengths• Most stakeholders recognise that serious road safety work has barely started in East Java• Desire to improve outcomes and activity towards good middle income country practice• Recognition of need to work together to improve outcomes via new institutional arrangements and strengthened capacity• Good quality (if small scale) road safety research capacity exists in at least two Universities in East Java 51
  52. 52. Need for leadership• Effective organization to achieve desired road safety results requires strong leadership• In good practice states or countries this role is played by a lead governmental agency.• Formal establishment of a lead agency/ department for road safety should be a provincial priority. 52
  53. 53. Review: conclusionEast Java has to start its long road safety journey With political will to ensure o provincial leadership capacity o focus on achieving results o effective coordination across agencies at national/ provincial/ local levels o demonstration project implementation o improved funding mechanisms and sources o high-level promotion of public awareness o appropriate research capacity development and knowledge development and transfer Many lives could be saved and injuries prevented 53
  54. 54. Short term and longer term strategyThe phases of investment strategy: World Bank Guidelines, 2009 54
  55. 55. Short term action:Phase 1: Establish road safety managementcapacity as a priority • knowledge transfer • management arrangements • intervention priorities • demonstration projects • policy reviews 55
  56. 56. Key matters to be addressed in Phase 1• Who is responsible for road safety in East Java?• Who will lead road safety ?• How will interventions be developed and coordinated ?• How will interventions be funded ?• How can demonstration projects help this activity?• How will future action plans be developed, promoted and monitored?• What level of safety is acceptable for East Java?• What level of safety is achievable in East Java ? 56
  57. 57. Key actions proposed for Phase 1• Work with partners in East Java; with WA; with national agencies – to transfer knowledge• Appoint lead agency for road safety• Establish fully funded intergovernmental road safety decision making and consultative arrangements• Agree intervention priorities for short term• Build capacity through 3 early demonstration projects• Implement demonstration projects and monitor performance• Conduct 2 or 3 priority policy reviews 57
  58. 58. Work with partners in E Java; with WA; withnational agencies – on knowledge transfer• Focus on means to improve road safety outcomes• Build knowledge within agencies and across agencies• Utilise existing university based centres of expertise• Build effective knowledge transfer linkages and obtain other technical assistance from WA• Develop knowledge transfer linkages with DGH and MoT (DGLT) 58
  59. 59. Appoint lead agency for road safety in EastJava• Designate Transport as lead department (“first among equals”) to support operation of proposed Provincial Road Safety Committee (PRSC) and Road Safety Working Group (RSWG).• Transport to provide secretariat services to these bodies and coordination support to all agencies - in addition to own responsibilities• Specify its formal objectives, functions and resourcing requirements 59
  60. 60. Establish fully funded Intergovernmental roadsafety decision making and consultativearrangements• Establish Provincial Road Safety leadership, decision making and consultative arrangements (at several levels):  intergovernmental PRSC  chaired by Provincial Secretary  members to include Head Traffic Police East Java; Head Balai Besar V; Principal Secretaries for Transport, Public Works, Education, Health and Planning of East Java Province; and Head Transport, City of Surabaya – with other kota/ kabupaten attending as necessary, Jasa Raharja)  meeting quarterly and supported by the lead agency. 60
  61. 61. Establish fully funded Intergovernmental roadsafety decision making and consultativearrangements (2)• PRSC to be supported with Road Safety Working Group (RSWG)  senior representatives from all key departments meeting monthly  develop advice to the PRSC and implement PRSC decisions.  chaired by Head of Transport Department Road safety section• RSWG to report to PRSC.• PRSC to publish agreed governmental agency road safety roles at national, provincial and local government level 61
  62. 62. Establish fully funded intergovernmental road safety decision making and consultative arrangements (3) Road Safety in East Java PROVINCIAL ROAD SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROVINCIAL ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE Chair- Provincial Secretary plus Head Traffic Police East Java, Head Balai Besar V, Heads of Transport, Public Works, Education, Health & Planning for East Java Province and Kota Surabaya and Jasa Raharja representativePROGRAM LEADSUPPORT ROAD SAFETY MANAGERS’ GROUP LOCALResourced road Chair – Dinas Perhubungan Road Safety GOVERNMENTsafety cell (technical Manager, plus Senior traffic police Manager, LIAISON -and administrative) Managers (road safety) for Public Works, Spatialwithin Dinas Planning, Education, Health; Kota Surabaya andPerhubungan Jasa Raharja representativeProvinsi TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS Individual experts inside and outside government ROAD SAFETY ADVISORY GROUP Experts and organizations 62
  63. 63. Build intergovernmental road safety decisionmaking and consultative arrangements (4)PRSC (and all agency members) with support of lead agencyto: • be responsible for leading and managing design and implementation of road safety demonstration project. • facilitate cooperative working and coordination across agencies to achieve demonstration projects planning, design, delivery, coordination and monitoring and evaluation • oversee selected road safety policy reviews • support budget allocation requests to increase road safety resourcing for key provincial agencies. 63
  64. 64. Build intergovernmental road safety decisionmaking and consultative arrangements (5)• eg., recommend six (6) additional positions be established within Transport department as road safety group - to provide secretariat and technical support to RSWG and PRSC and support for Transport road safety activities - road safety policy based on safe system, statistics and research, safety economics, road user behaviour, safety promotion• PRSC and RSWG to actively utilise road safety element of twinning arrangements with WA to build capacity of road safety staff 64
  65. 65. Agree intervention priorities for short termInterventions should always be based on evidence:Recommended priorities (including within demonstrationprojects) should include: • deterrence of under age unlicensed riding • lower travel speeds – through lower limits and enforcement and infrastructure (eg pavement platforms) in urban areas, especially near schools - and on rural roads where trucks mix with motorcyclists and no separate lanes, and near bus stops • provision of separate lanes for motorcyclists on high crash/ high speed lengths • deterrence of unsafe overtaking enforcement by buses and trucks • crash helmet wearing enforcement 65
  66. 66. Agree intervention priorities for short term(2)• compliance with road rules, red lights and pedestrian crossings• intersections infrastructure and signage/ signal treatments plus lower speed limits and enforcement• pedestrian crossing facilities at intersections and mid block and at schools• infrastructure safety investment to reduce motorcyclist and pedestrian serious casualty crash risk on high risk sections of the network plus pro-active police enforcement. 66
  67. 67. Build capacity through 3 DemonstrationprojectsThree projects suggested: • Safer higher speed road section (rural) • Safer outer urban arterial road section • Safer urban area 67
  68. 68. Demonstration projects planning anddesign• Planning and design• Implementation• Monitoring and Evaluation• Management and technical capacity development 68
  69. 69. Demonstration projects planning anddesign (2)• PRSC to lead and manage demonstration projects – ‘learning by doing’ projects - in 3 locations:  Safer Higher Speed Road Location,  Safer Outer Urban Arterial Road Area and  Safer Urban Area.• Good practice safety interventions to be applied at demonstration project locations to rapidly improve road safety performance.• RSWG to coordinate development and design of initiatives across the sectors - by individual agencies - based on Safe System principles• Develop and design multi-sectoral initiatives to target current priority fatal and serious injury crash risks 69
  70. 70. Demonstration projects planning anddesign (4)• Obtain technical assistance (T/A) to define project management in planning stage, plan interventions and define intermediate outcome targets and data survey protocols• Terms of Reference for this T/A to PRSC for detailed demonstration project preparation task - will be provided with final report.• Interventions to include: procurement and training in use of equipment by police (and transport) to intensify enforcement, coordinated delivery of infrastructure works, traffic signage and signals, other project components including public campaigns, school education, upgraded emergency call out and response system and emergency care. 70
  71. 71. Demonstration projects planning anddesign (5)• PRSC to establish priorities and budget requirements for engagement internationally for professional knowledge development and mentoring, including earlier T/A (especially from Western Australia) to support specific needs such as:  Traffic Police: training and roll out of upgraded enforcement capacity (strategy, equipment, support and levels of task resourcing)  Balai Besar V and Provincial PU: safe road infrastructure design – safe system understanding and application to rehabilitation, especially intersections and hard shoulders (depending on whether national or provincial road)  Transport Department: development of heavy vehicle driving hours controls and overloading enforcement strategies, signage, signals  Health: Emergency response system and rapid admission to care  Education: programs for children’s education in demonstration project locations, treatments outside schools, managing safe school access 71
  72. 72. Developing and implementing demonstrationprojects to support capacity building• Build capacity through 3 demonstration projects to commence as soon as possible• Implement Demo projects and monitor/ report on road safety performance 72
  73. 73. Advisory group – expert and industry• Once demonstration projects confirmed, establish Advisory Group to provide advice for project preparation and implementation.• Membership comprising State, National and International experts, some industry representatives and reporting to the RSWG and PRSC. 73
  74. 74. Demonstration projects implementation• PRSC to obtain further technical assistance support for final pre implementation planning for demonstration projects• RSWG to coordinate rollout of initiatives by individual agencies• Project monitoring and evaluation framework to be established involving:  confirm intermediate outcome indicators which are to be measured before and during demonstration projects period  measurement on ongoing basis during projects operation  recording of crash and crash injury data for demonstration projects locations  comprehensive evaluation of performance• RSWG to report findings to PRSC and ensure preparation of guidelines to assist replication of effective interventions across E. Java 74
  75. 75. Conduct 2 or 3 priority policy reviews• Review selected current policies against international good practice, identify options for improvement and consider recommendations• PRSC to resolve technical assistance and budget requirements for reviews• Options for reviews include: o Ensuring hospital admission for injured crash victims o Reviewing opportunities for Jasa Raharja to invest in road safety activities o Driver licensing o Heavy commercial vehicle safety o Enforcement of road traffic law – deterrent policing and the penalty system o Public Bus Operating Safety 75
  76. 76. Utilising capacities developed fromdemonstration projects• Management and technical capacity development gained from design and delivery of demonstration projects, will underpin replication of successful interventions throughout East Java.• PRSC to overview ongoing building of technical and management capacity for road safety in lead department and other key governmental departments. Pursue through East Java/ Western Australia Road Safety Twinning Program and other means 76
  77. 77. Further short term road safety actionsOther specific road safety actions which could be addressed inthe next three years include:• Urgent review of legislative and justice arrangements to improve enforceability of road laws, strengthen deterrence through penalties increases and automated enforcement• Leadership by government in selecting safe fleet vehicles, requiring similar standards for taxis and committing to providing positive role modelling across government by complying with traffic laws.• Having the IRSMS crash system data for East Java continuously reviewed 77
  78. 78. Phase 2 : Prepare a road safety action planfor East Java• Develop Provincial road safety action plan (end 2016) - to be implemented to deliver new 2020 target.• Monitoring of road safety program by PRSC• Draw upon knowledge acquired in demonstration projects and other capacity development. 78
  79. 79. Phase 2 : Prepare a road safety action planfor East Java (2)• Establish annual sustainable funding mechanisms for road safety as a priority• Review any issues inhibiting police enforcement and recommend changes• Consider NRSMP actions as they relate to East Java and implement key crash risk reduction measures 79
  80. 80. Next steps  Discussion and feedback today Finalise Report for East Java and WA  Recommend priority measures  East Java and WA to then consider next steps and demonstration project locations  Seek funding 80
  81. 81. DiscussionResponses from:  key East Java government stakeholders  key National government stakeholders  key local government stakeholders  other stakeholders About: (1) Capacity Building - management arrangements - building knowledge (2) priority interventions (3) demonstration project concepts (4) policy review priorities (5) other 81
  82. 82. Initial road safety activity – Road SafetyManagement Capacity ReviewEast Java/ Western Australia Twinning ProgramProvince of East JavaPresentation by Eric Howard, Tri Tjahjono and Tony Bliss19th March 2013, Surabaya
  83. 83. East Java/ Western Australia Twinning ProgramInitial road safety activity – Road Safety Management Capacity Review Province of East Java Thank You Presentation by Eric Howard, Tri Tjahjono and Tony Bliss 19th March 2013, Surabaya 83