Peter Mackenzie
My reading of the principles and practices used in Sweden is that they would not accept building of T-junctions of any kind in the Dilston By-pass situation, and would require overpass junction (s). Sweden says it is not ethical to accept deaths and serious injuries from road use and that safety needs must be paramount above other demands and needs in transport. Their reasoning says that people will continue to make driving mistakes (whether we label them as anything from inattention to reckless behaviour will not stop them happening), putting themselves and others at risk of crash as would happen at the planned Dilston T-junctions.
22nd January 2009

AN OPEN LETTER ON THE PLANNED DILSTON BY-PASS AND JUNCTIONS: (follows the issues discussion meeting held by at Launceston City Council, January 20th 2009)

The main issue is whether the modified ‘Seagull” T-junctions proposed by DIER are the safest design for intersections to the planned Dilston By-Pass. The safety of Tasmanians and visitors now and for decades into the future demands that the design for these intersections is the safest possible – that which has the lowest risk of crash and consequent potential death or serious injury.

At the 20th January meeting, DIER representatives confirmed that some safety aspects of the design of the Dilston By-pass are based on the Swedish ‘Vision Zero” principles and practices. Sweden has the second lowest rate of fatalities in the world – a significantly lower rate than Tasmania and the Australian mainland states. My reading of the principles and practices used in Sweden is that they would not accept building of T-junctions of any kind in the Dilston By-pass situation, and would require overpass junction (s).

Sweden says it is not ethical to accept deaths and serious injuries from road use and that safety needs must be paramount above other demands and needs in transport. Their reasoning says that people will continue to make driving mistakes (whether we label them as anything from inattention to reckless behaviour will not stop them happening), putting themselves and others at risk of crash as would happen at the planned Dilston T-junctions. Studies by the Roads and Traffic Authority in NSW, Monash University, and the “Trace” research in Europe confirm this. The potential for side impact crash at over 50kph at Dilston would present too much risk of death or serious injury to allow for this type of design in this situation. I should add that the Swedish concerns are of car to car collision alone, not truck to car, so the potential for death and serious injury would be much higher again where a truck was involved in a collision with a car.

While I understand that DIER representatives say the planned T-junctions will be the best design of this type used in Tasmania, DIER staff at the 20th January meeting also acknowledged the T-junction design would not be as safe as overpass junctions.

To assist with the continuing issue of division of thought in what should be built, I offer the following suggestion to assist with the final decisions by DIER and Launceston City Council as to what is the safest design (s) for the intersections. In recent years Minister Cox, then as Minister for Infrastructure, purposely visited Sweden to learn of their approaches to road safety and safer roads, leading to incorporation of certain safety features into designs for the Dilston By-Pass.

I believe that DIER staff, would be able to ascertain knowledge of the Swedish best practice design principles and practices for the junctions, perhaps with the assistance of the contacts Minister Cox made in Sweden. Perhaps Launceston City Council, or DIER on it’s behalf, could check re the proposition of roundabouts as alternatives to the T-Junctions.

Alternative contact could be made with staff at Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) who would either have the information or be able to assist ascertaining it. They have close ties with Sweden’s road safety people, including Claes Tingvall, one of the key drivers of “Vision Zero” – who also worked at MUARC in recent years. (direct email contact for Claes Tingvall is [email protected])

Additional expert advice could be gained from Professor Raphael Grzebieta B.E., MEngSci, who is Chair of Road Safety at the University of NSW and former President of The Australasian College of Road Safety. He is a passionate advocate for safer road engineering.

The planned Dilston By-pass is an important part of the East Tamar Highway upgrade that will serve existing industry, as well as the planned upgrade of Bell Bay Port and the proposed Pulp-Mill, all for decades into the future.

I think it is clear that if as I believe, the Swedish experts say they would not build T-junctions in the Dilston situation, then we should not be accepting what by deduction could be called “world’s second best practice”. While we all want to believe that road crashes won’t happen to us or our families, Tasmanian’s have too often seen the destruction of lives in crashes involving cars and trucks too many times already. This proposed By-pass will see big future increases in truck numbers coupled to an ageing driving population with consequent high risks.

I understand that DIER needs to keep as close to budget as possible. Yet trying to save additional expenditure now, by not building the safest (overpass) junctions on a project that is primarily for industry and freight movement, costing $36 million dollar of combined federal and state funds, only to see a child, a mum or dad destroyed in a crash at a Dilston T-Junction, whether in 2012 or 2020, would not be called clear vision in terms of life, limb or finances. We must have the safest option now, not through costly future upgrades after deaths or serious injury occur. We cannot afford the cheaper version.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Mackenzie

Copies to
Peter Todd, GM Transport & Traffic, DIER
Mayor, Deputy Mayor & Aldermen Launceston City Council
Frank Dixon, GM Launceston City Council
Ivan Dean MLC Windermere
ABC Radio/TV
Tasmanian Times