0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
40 vues32 pages
This presentation was delivered by Sangjin Han (Korea Transport Institute) during the second day of the Urban Road Safety Training Workshop at the ADB Transport Forum on 19 September 2014.
This presentation was delivered by Sangjin Han (Korea Transport Institute) during the second day of the Urban Road Safety Training Workshop at the ADB Transport Forum on 19 September 2014.
This presentation was delivered by Sangjin Han (Korea Transport Institute) during the second day of the Urban Road Safety Training Workshop at the ADB Transport Forum on 19 September 2014.
Urban road safety training workshop Manila, The Philippines Sept 19, 2014 Sangjin HAN han@koti.re.kr Korea Transport Institute
Urban road safety audits in Korea - Evaluating safety performance- 2 CONTENTS I. Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation II. Good Practices of Road Infrastructure Safety Management III. Risk Maps IV. Star Ratings V. Questions and Answers VI. Road Safety Audit in Korea 3 Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation? Questions - All design criteria are satisfied, BUT some road sections have more accidents? - Attribute on road users, Careless driving! BUT why people make mistakes on certain road sections more?
Design Standards cannot explain all - Design standards are mimimum No incentive to introduce higher standards - Design standards cannot consider interactions in different factors
Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation? 4 Roads are public goods - Having certain number of users Captive demands guaranteed - Less motivation for better service Safe System Approach - Road Users, Vehicles, and Road Infrastructure all go together for safer system - Basic: People can make errors! - How road infrastructure can protect imperfect people from being hurt in crash - Road authority is a key player in safe system - Benchmark vehicle industry (Volvo) - Vision Zero (S), Sustainable Safety (N), Towards Zero (Australia) Good practices of road infrastructure safety management 5 - Road Infrastructure Safety Management (EU Directives) Road Safety Impact Assessment Road Safety Audit High Risk Sites In-depth Investigation **Legal requirements for all EU-TEN roads
- Safety Performance Indicators Benchmarking safety of other countries ETSC reports SUNflower Approach
Good practices of road infrastructure safety management 6 - Road Assessment Program EuroRAP, AusRAP, usRAP, iRAP etc. - Road Safety Measures Efficiency Assessment Accident Modification Functions Rosebud (UK) etc. - ESN models Difference from ideal road conditions (average safety level) Cost savings possibility Implemented in Germany and Austria
7 About iRAP Assessment Process Risk Map 8 Risk from all contributory factors: human factors, vehicles, and road infrastructure Objective safety evaluation based on revealed risk Risk Map Traffic Volume Length of Roads No. of accidents Fatal, seriously injured.. 3- 5 years correspondent to accident data Distance between starting and ending point of road section 9 Risk Map Accident Data (2007-2009) Fatal, seriously injured, slightly injured (no PDO) KOTSA, KoRoad (X, Y Coordinate)
Road Sections IC to IC or JC Sufficient number of accidents Distinctive to the public
Data Collection for Motorway 10 Risk Map Crashes per kilometre Accidents/km per year Accident density Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled Accidents/vehicle-km per year Individual risks
Essential Indicators Risk in relation to roads with similar flow levels Potential cost savings from crash reductions EPDO equivalence Accident cost Selective Indicators 11 Risk Map Classifications Risk Category Accidents/km Accidents/vehicle-km Very low 0~0.467 0~4.416 Low 0.468~0.985 4.417~6.012 Medium 0.986~1.830 6.013~7.632 High 1.831~3.366 7.633~9.987 Very high 3.367 9.988 Risk Category Accident Cost/km Accident Cost/veh-km Very low 0~7.879 0~3.911 Low 7.88~13.378 3.912~34.838 Medium 13.379~19.879 34.839~53.892 High 19.88~32.789 53.893~74.239 Very high 32.79 74.24 12 Risk Map Results Crashes per kilometre Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled 13 Risk Map Results Crashes per kilometre 14 Risk Map Results Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled 15 Risk Map Crashes per kilometre profile by route 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 Risk Map Crashes per vehicle kilometre profile travelled by route 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 Risk Map Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/km)-examples Route 12 (Muan-Woonsu), 0.04 Route 65 (Starting Point-Ulsan JCT), 0.07 Route 253(GochangJCT-Daeduk JCT), 0.07 Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/vehicle-km)-examples Route 12 (Muan-Woonsu), 0.85 Route 40 (Seopyongtack JCT-Daeso JCT), 0.99 Route 65(Starting Point-Ulsan JCT) 1.1o
Star Rating 19 Risk from road infrastructure: Head-on crashes, Run-off crashes, Crashes in junctions Quantitative evaluation on prevention or reduction of crashes Star Rating Star Rating Head-on Crashes Junction Crashes Run-Off Crashes Speed Road side obstacles Delineator, etc.
Speed Median types Necessity of overpass, etc. Speed Junction types Traffic volumes, etc Star Rating 20 National Road Route 3 Star Rating 21 Speed 80km/h Lane width 2.75m to 3.25m Curvature Straight 0.67 1.1 1.0 Quality of curve Delineation Shoulder width Shoulder rumble strips Road condition Adequate 1.0 Adequate <= 1m No 1.0 1.3 1.0 Good 1.0 Speed Roadside severity (left) 80km/h Object 0-5 m 0.44 5.0 L i k e l i h o o d
P r o t e c t i o n
0.44 Roadside severity (right) Drainage 5.0 Run-off Crashes Star Rating 22 Speed 80km/h Lane width 2.75m to 3.25m Curvature Straight 0.67 1.1 1.0 Quality of curve Number of lanes Overtaking demand Road condition Adequate 1.0 2 Low 1.0 0.6 Good 1.0 Speed Median 80km/h Rumble strip 0.44 3.3 L i k e l i h o o d
P r o t e c t i o n
0.29 Head-on crashes Star Rating 23 Speed 80km/h Type 3L sig. left turn Cross volume 1000-10,000vpd 0.67 30 0.5 Quality Minor access density Adequate 1 Low 1 Speed Type 80km/h 3L sig. left turn 0.44 3.25 L i k e l i h o o d
: Sealed shoulder Adequate delineation 2 straight, wide lanes Divided with safety barrier Safety barrier Good pavement condition No rumble strips 80 km/h No intersection RO: 4 HO:5 INT:5 5-star National Roads Star Rating 28 19
: RO:1 HO:1 INT:5 Narrow sealed shoulder
Adequate delineation
Fixed objects (0-5m) both sides
Good pavement condition No rumble strips 60 km/h Very sharp curves Centreline only No intersection Wide lanes 1-star National Roads 29 Questions and Answers Who will be responsible on Road Assessment Program? Governments Road Authorities Motoring Clubs
What if road authorities are sued after RAP by insurance company? Not reported yet Can be a proof of safety efforts (r.f. Road Safety Audit in U.K)
How to interpret difference in Risk Map results and RPS High risk, Low RPS : infrastructure can be a main risk factor High risk, High RPS: road users can be a main risk factor Low risk, Low RPS: road users are careful in risky roads Low risk, High RPS: ideal case
30 Questions and Answers Difference from Road Safety Audit? RAP is for roads in operation RSA is for roads in design RAP : Road risk management in network level
RAP only for car occupants? Car occupants plus, bicyclists motorcyclists Pedestrians
Always bad RPS star rating for low class road? Speed is main scaling factor 1 star roads in motorway, 5 star roads in rural roads 31 Questions and Answers All roads maintains Design Standards, but low RPS? Design Standard is just for minimum DS cannot consider interaction between different factors
Road Safety Audit in Korea 32 - Success Stories in Motorway Korea Highway Corp. conducted RSA (2004) Mostly effective (-2 % ~ -100 % in Yongdong; Mun, 2012) - Traffic Safety Act (Article 34, 35, 36) In effect from 2008 Safety audit for transport operators (passenger, freight) Road infrastructure (main trunk roads, urban roads, new) - Improvement Points Qualitative judgement Not much new road projects Low project costs: Less incentives for participation