adbtf14_urs urban road safety audits in korea
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
1/32
1
TRANSPORT FORUM 2014
Urban road safety training workshop
Manila, The Philippines
Sept 19, 2014
Sangjin HAN
Korea Transport Institute
Urban road safety audits in Korea
- Evaluating safety performance-
mailto:han@mailto:han@ -
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
2/32
2CONTENTS
I. Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation
II. Good Practices of Road Infrastructure Safety Management
III. Risk MapsIV. Star Ratings
V. Questions and Answers
VI. Road Safety Audit in Korea
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
3/32
3Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation?
Questions
- All design criteria are satisfied,
BUTsome road sections have more accidents?
- Attribute on road users, Careless driving!
BUTwhy 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
4/32
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 playerin safe system
- Benchmark vehicle industry (Volvo)
- Vision Zero (S), Sustainable Safety (N), Towards Zero
(Australia)
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
5/32
Good practices of
road infrastructure safety management5
- Road Infrastructure Safety Management EU Directives)
Road Safety Impact Assessment
Road Safety Audit
High Risk SitesIn-depth Investigation
**Legal requirements for all EU-TEN roads
- Safety Performance Indicators
Benchmarking safety of other countries
ETSC reports
SUNflower Approach
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
6/32
Good practices of
road infrastructure safety management6
- 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
7/32
7About iRAP
Assessment Process
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
8/32
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 RoadsNo. of accidents
Fatal, seriously injured.. 3- 5 years correspondent toaccident data
Distance betweenstarting and ending point ofroad section
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
9/32
9Risk Map
Accident Data 2007-2009)
Fatal, seriously injured, slightly injured no PDO)
KOTSA, KoRoad X, Y Coordinate)
Traffic Volume 2007-2009)
Passenger cars, buses, trucks
Yearly statistical book MLTM)
Road Sections
IC to IC or JC
Sufficient number of accidents
Distinctive to the public
Data Collection for Motorway
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
10/32
10Risk 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
11/32
11Risk 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
12/32
12Risk Map
Results
Crashes per kilometre Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
13/32
13Risk Map
Results Crashes per kilometre
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
14/32
14Risk Map
Results Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
15/32
15Risk Map
Crashes per kilometre profile by route
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
16/32
16Risk 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
17/32
17Risk 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
18/32
18Risk Map
Top 3 high risk road sections in motorway (crash/km)- examples
Route 100 (Seoun JCT-Jungdong IC), 13.97
Route 65 (Songnae IC-Jangsu IC), 13.89
Route 1 (Suwon IC-Singal JCT), 10.00
Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/vehicle-km)-examples
Route 451 (Namdaegu IC-Sungseo IC), 27.73
Route 10 (Sanin JCT-Chilwon JCT), 23.96
Route 120(Seowoon JCT-Bucheon IC) 20.58
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
19/32
Star Rating 19
Risk from road infrastructure:
Head-on crashes, Run-off crashes, Crashes in junctions
Quantitative evaluation on prevention or reduction of crashesStar Rating
Star Rating
Head-on Crashes Junction CrashesRun-Off Crashes
SpeedRoad side obstaclesDelineator, etc.
Speed
Median typesNecessity of overpass, etc.
Speed
Junction typesTraffic volumes, etc
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
20/32
Star Rating 20
National Road Route 3
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
21/32
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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
22/32
Star Rating 22
Speed 80km/h
Lane width 2.75m to 3.25m
Curvature Straight
0.67
1.1
1.0Quality 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
Likelihoo
d
Protec
tion
0.29
Head-on crashes
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
23/32
Star Rating 23
Speed 80km/h
Type 3L sig. left turn
Cross volume1000-10,000vpd
0.67
30
0.5Quality
Minor access density
Adequate 1
Low 1
Speed
Type
80km/h
3L sig. left turn
0.44
3.25
Likel
ihood
Pr
otec
t
ion
4.75
Junction crashes
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
24/32
Star Rating 24
0.44 0.29 4.755.48
Overall RPS
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
25/32
Star Rating 25
RPS Profile (Natioanal Route 3)
5.48
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
26/32
Star Rating 26
Road Types Length(km) 1 star 2 star 3 star 4star 5star
Motorway 103.5 3% 23% 73% 1%
35 45.1 7% 33% 60%
45 58.4 15% 82% 2%
107.4 1% 15% 22% 54% 8%
3 23.3 3% 8% 89%19 45.7 2% 29% 36% 24% 9%
37 16.7 36% 64%
38 19.6 79% 21%
100.6 1% 34% 35% 24% 5%
510 26 1% 47% 21% 13% 18%
516 23.2 5% 10% 68% 17%
520 16.9 64% 36%
525 34.5 26% 24% 49% 1%
311.5 1% 17% 27% 51% 5%
RPS (Chungcheongbukdo- sample 311.5km)
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
27/32
Star Rating 27
38
:
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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
28/32
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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
29/32
29Questions 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
30/32
30Questions 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
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
31/32
31Questions and Answers
All roads maintains Design Standards, but low RPS?Design Standard is just for minimum
DS cannot consider interaction between different factors
-
8/11/2019 ADBTF14_URS Urban Road Safety Audits in Korea
32/32
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