The UK's Rail Safety & Standards Board - RSSB - published its annual safety performance report for 2009/2010. I read the "Key facts and figures" bit - and fascinating it was too.

There were no passenger or workforce fatalities in train accidents in Great Britain during the year.

There were five passenger fatalities (two on platform edges hit by trains, two falling off platforms and one falling on an escalator): this is equal to the lowest annual figure on record. There were three workforce fatalities, and 298 public fatalities - suicides, trespassers or people misusing level crossings.

Most of the risk of fatalities on the railway is through the behaviour of members of the public.

The annual average number of workforce fatalities has dropped by 98% since 1949: passenger fatalities are also significantly down. Public fatalities have shown no significant change.

In the last three years, and in five of the last 10 years, there have been no fatalities to passengers in train accidents. The moving average number of train accidents resulting in passenger or workforce fatalities has fallen by 75% since 1950, and is currently less than one a year.

These are excellent figures, superb figures, and it is just a shame that, because they are good news, they hit no headlines. Because the rail system in Great Britain carries around 24,000 trains a day with trailing loads of up to 1000 tonnes: they travel at speeds of up to 200 km/h and are powered by either high-voltage electricity or flammable diesel fuel.

They are driven, controlled and signalled by fallible human beings. Several stations see more passengers than Heathrow Airport.

And yet no passenger has been killed in a train accident for three years: there were no such fatalities in half of the last 10 years.

Not only is that good news, it is a high tribute to the excellence of our rail system - all of it. Managers, workforce, maintainers, everyone involved.

The report can be found on RSSB's web-site, www.rssb.co.uk.

I've written before about the fact that getting a driving licence is no longer the first ambition of a 17 year old - and consequently licence holding is dropping.

Latest figures from National Travel Statistics, for Great Britain 2009, confirm this.

In 1995/7, 43% of people aged between 17 and 20 had a licence: by 2009 that figure was 36%. The drop has affected the next age cohort too: for those between 21 and 29, in 1995/7 74% had a licence whereas in 2009 it was 65%.

If you just look at males, figures are even more dramatic.

In 1995/7, 50% of those between 17 and 20 had a licence: in 2009 it was 37%. For their elders (21-29) it was 80% in 1995/7 and 67% in 2009.

Next time someone says, "Everyone's got a car these days", tell them!

I was fascinated to read a recent article about local property tax yields in US cities.

Conventional wisdom has been that an up-market shopping mall is just the job to prop up the local property tax base.

However, when Sarasota County in Floria looked at the property tax revenue from each acre (0.4 hectares) of area, they found surprising results.

Residential property inside municipalities generated revenues of around $8200/acre for single family houses in one city.

However, very large stand-alone big-box stores produced much the same - maybe $8400/acre, probably because of the size of the car parks!

Upscale shopping malls with quality shops were good, at $22,000/acre.

However, a high-rise mixed use development occupying 0.75 of an acre was by far the best revenue generator, at $800,000/acre.

Even blocks of up to 7 stories generate $560,000, and up to 3 stories (shops with residential development on top) $70,000 - more than 3 times the revenue of the best shopping mall and 9 times the classic Wal-Mart supermarket.

Showing that in-town development - the classic transit-oriented development - is better for tax revenues than suburban sprawl. It's better for many other reasons too!

The full article (and some useful links) can be found in the Citiwire web-site. Authors are Peter Katz, Director Smart Growth and Urban Planning for Sarasota County, and Mary Newsome, associate editor and opinion writer at the Charlotte Observer.

I understand that 15% of the capacity at Sydney Kingsford Smith airport is taken up with the shuttle to Canberra. There are flights every 40 minutes on this 250 km sector.

The airport is capacity constrained, and plans for a replacement or for additional capacity are not close to fruition.

A high speed rail link sounds like a good idea, for all sorts of reasons.

Does anyone know the economics of those flights? A 250 km sector is pretty expensive to fly!

The driving licence is no longer the first aspiration of a teenager in the US.

Trends are analysed in a recent article in "Advertising Age". The analysis shows that licence holding among, for example, 18 year olds has dropped from 86% in 1978 to 68% in 2008.

The article can be found on the Advertising Age web-site.

Similar trends apply to all teenage years - indeed, at the very end of the article, a comparison of overall licence holding by age group shows that licence holding has declined in all age groups between 1998 and 2008.

There is speculation about why this trend should have happened, particularly among the young.

Some States have increased minimum driving ages: some have tightened requirements. The inability to use portable electronic devices and an interest in the environment are seen as other causes.

The same trend is apparent in the UK: driving licence holding in the 17-21 year old cohort has been dropping for some time, and has only shown a slight uptick in the last set of statistics.

Interesting!