James Reynolds | Monash University (original) (raw)
Papers by James Reynolds
Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2017
There is wide agreement that prioritising on-road public transport services is beneficial, but co... more There is wide agreement that prioritising on-road public transport services is beneficial, but considerable uncertainty about how best to implement priority measures in practice. As yet it is unclear why some transit priority schemes receive political, institutional and public support while others are blocked, cancelled or compromised, often for non-technical reasons.
This paper explores how public policy analysis concepts can be adapted to describe and
potentially improve transit priority implementation. Previous evaluation approaches have focused on the traffic, mobility and economic impacts of transit priority measures. What has been missing is a consideration of how politics, institutional arrangements and other non-rational factors influence priority implementation.
This paper describes the major forms of policy analysis (rationalism, institutionalism, incrementalism, political approaches and the ‘garbage can’ model) and uses each to develop new conceptual models of priority implementation.
Institutional and top-down models emphasise the government’s control over the road and transit system. They suggest that better policies and centralisation of decision-making might improve priority implementation. In contrast, bottom-up implementation theories and what is termed the ‘garbage can’ model emphasise the influence of street-level actors and project team members. These suggest that understanding the drivers of individuals’ opinions, strategies and decision-making is necessary to improve implementation and outcomes.
Incrementalism based models, on the other hand, suggest using a series of small changes to gradually increase the level of transit priority over time instead of a large, and potentially controversial, single step.
This paper provides an initial move beyond the prevailing ‘techno-rationalist’ approaches to transit priority implementation. It concludes with a description of opportunities for future research to test these new models and to explore the political, institutional and other factors influencing transit priority implementation.
Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2019
Vision Zero and the Safe Systems approach are part of the recent shift in road safety engineering... more Vision Zero and the Safe Systems approach are part of the recent shift in road safety engineering towards networks that are more forgiving of human errors. These new approaches challenge earlier attitudes where 'driver error' was considered a major, but unavoidable cause of road trauma. However, it is unclear whether the researchers and practitioners developing these new approaches have successfully engaged with the legal profession to bring traffic law along, together with the field of road safety, though this transition.
Traffic enforcement and the legal processes to deter and punish violations are an important input to the “alert and compliant road users” (PIARC 2015) at the centre of
the Safe System approach. However, road rules exist in an adversarial justice system built on concepts of negligence and duty of care. Whether road safety thinking aiming to be “more forgiving of human error” (PIARC 2015) is compatible with, or is being
adopted by, the current legal system remains unclear.
This paper explores a recent, high profile crash at the Montague Street bridge in South Melbourne. It uses case study methodology and a textual analysis of the judge’s sentencing remarks to explore how the laws of negligence might overlap or conflict with research knowledge about human factors and the driving task, and the Safe Systems approach.
The paper does not seek to judge, comment on or otherwise give detailed opinion on the legal system or the outcomes of the case in question. Rather, it finds that current road safety research may not be fully informing or have been fully incorporated into
traffic law or the way the legal system generates outcomes. Conclusions and directions for further research are also detailed, including a suggestion for greater engagement by the field of road safety engineering with that of law.
Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2017
There is wide agreement that prioritising on-road public transport services is beneficial, but co... more There is wide agreement that prioritising on-road public transport services is beneficial, but considerable uncertainty about how best to implement priority measures in practice. As yet it is unclear why some transit priority schemes receive political, institutional and public support while others are blocked, cancelled or compromised, often for non-technical reasons.
This paper explores how public policy analysis concepts can be adapted to describe and
potentially improve transit priority implementation. Previous evaluation approaches have focused on the traffic, mobility and economic impacts of transit priority measures. What has been missing is a consideration of how politics, institutional arrangements and other non-rational factors influence priority implementation.
This paper describes the major forms of policy analysis (rationalism, institutionalism, incrementalism, political approaches and the ‘garbage can’ model) and uses each to develop new conceptual models of priority implementation.
Institutional and top-down models emphasise the government’s control over the road and transit system. They suggest that better policies and centralisation of decision-making might improve priority implementation. In contrast, bottom-up implementation theories and what is termed the ‘garbage can’ model emphasise the influence of street-level actors and project team members. These suggest that understanding the drivers of individuals’ opinions, strategies and decision-making is necessary to improve implementation and outcomes.
Incrementalism based models, on the other hand, suggest using a series of small changes to gradually increase the level of transit priority over time instead of a large, and potentially controversial, single step.
This paper provides an initial move beyond the prevailing ‘techno-rationalist’ approaches to transit priority implementation. It concludes with a description of opportunities for future research to test these new models and to explore the political, institutional and other factors influencing transit priority implementation.
Australasian Transport Research Forum, 2019
Vision Zero and the Safe Systems approach are part of the recent shift in road safety engineering... more Vision Zero and the Safe Systems approach are part of the recent shift in road safety engineering towards networks that are more forgiving of human errors. These new approaches challenge earlier attitudes where 'driver error' was considered a major, but unavoidable cause of road trauma. However, it is unclear whether the researchers and practitioners developing these new approaches have successfully engaged with the legal profession to bring traffic law along, together with the field of road safety, though this transition.
Traffic enforcement and the legal processes to deter and punish violations are an important input to the “alert and compliant road users” (PIARC 2015) at the centre of
the Safe System approach. However, road rules exist in an adversarial justice system built on concepts of negligence and duty of care. Whether road safety thinking aiming to be “more forgiving of human error” (PIARC 2015) is compatible with, or is being
adopted by, the current legal system remains unclear.
This paper explores a recent, high profile crash at the Montague Street bridge in South Melbourne. It uses case study methodology and a textual analysis of the judge’s sentencing remarks to explore how the laws of negligence might overlap or conflict with research knowledge about human factors and the driving task, and the Safe Systems approach.
The paper does not seek to judge, comment on or otherwise give detailed opinion on the legal system or the outcomes of the case in question. Rather, it finds that current road safety research may not be fully informing or have been fully incorporated into
traffic law or the way the legal system generates outcomes. Conclusions and directions for further research are also detailed, including a suggestion for greater engagement by the field of road safety engineering with that of law.