WWW.NORDICROADS.COMROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH | NO.2 2014

Join our transition to online news only. Read more articles and subscribe to our

newsletter at www.nordicroads.comThis is the last paper issue of the magazine.

DRIVE C2X Assessed Impacts of Cooperative Systems– Positive Impact on Driver Behavior and Traffic SafetyNorway’s Path to Sustainable TransportBestfact – Best Practice Factory for Freight Transport

2 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014 www.nordicroads.com

Norway’s Path to Sustainable Transport Thanks to the substantial purchase tax levied on new passenger cars, the Norwegian government has a quite powerful climate policy instrument at its hand. Continued application of this instrument may halve the greenhouse gas emissions from Norwegian cars within two or three decades.

On account of the higher energy ef�ciency of electric motors compared to internal

combustion engines, the total energy con-sump tion of the Norwegian car �eet may de-crease considerably, to the pro�t of society in general and consumers in particular. Six per cent of Norway’s hydropower output would be suf�cient to operate the entire passenger car �eet, if completely electri�ed.

Public transport has an indispensable role to play in the daily life of urban citizens, but a fairly modest potential for greenhouse gas abatement.

Even very ambitious packages com bining reduced fares with improved level-of-service fail to achieve more than a few percentage

points’ reduction in CO2 emissions from travel.

Improving the road network so as to allow for substantially higher speed will increase emission in the short as well as in the long run. Cars become more competitive, and as they speed, per kilometre emissions go up.

Earmarking the environmental tax will en-hance its public acceptability, and so will increased faith in the fairness and effective-ness of the tax measure.

Ef�cient corridors for freight trains may substantially enhance the competitive edge and market share of the rail mode. As trans-ports are transferred from road to rail, green-house gas emissions are cut to a fraction.

It appears doubtful whether the mecha-

nisms for achieving climate policy goals carry suf�cient weight when meeting with con�ict-ing goals and considerations. A proposal to introduce a climate change act, to enforce and monitor greenhouse gas abatement policies, is pending in the Norwegian Parliament.

Report: Norway’s path to sustainable transport. TØI Report 1321/2014. Authors: Lasse Fridstrøm and Knut H. Alfsen. Report in Norwegian with summary in English. www.bit.ly/1321-2014

CONTACTLasse Fridstrøm lef@toi.no TØI Norway

Illus

trat

ion:

TØI

Pho

to: S

hutt

erst

ock

Six per cent of Norway’s hydropower output would be sufficient to operate the entire passenger car fleet, if completely electrified.

Nordic Continues Online – Sign Up for Our NewsletterThis issue of Nordic Road and Transport Research is the last paper issue of the magazine. But don’t worry! Our articles on road and transport research will keep on coming on our website. Visit the redesigned and improved www.nordicroads.com.

To make sure you don’t miss out on any-thing from us, feel free to subscribe to our

newsletter that will be sent out four times per year. Subscribe with our online form at www.nordicroads.com/subscribe

“Greater Risk for Motorcyclists in Intersections and on Small Roads”

“Better Traf�c Flow with Adaptable Speed Bumps”

Extra articles on our website with this issue:

“Coolant Best for Engine Heating”

NORDIC NO. 2 2014 | 3

Section Cameras Reduce AccidentsAn evaluation of automatic section speed cameras at 14 road sections in Norway found a reduction of the number of injury crashes by between 12 and 22 per cent and a reduction of the number of killed or severely injured road users by between 49 and 54 per cent.

Each section control site consists of a stretch or road between two speed cam-

eras (four speed cameras at sites with bidirec-tional section control), both of which take pictures of all passing vehicles in one direc-tion with automatic license plate recognition. Average speed is calculated from the times at which the �rst and second camera is passed. Drivers of vehicles with an average speed above the speed limit may be prosecuted.

The study has controlled for trend, vol-umes, speed limit changes at some of the sites and speed cameras at some of the sites in the before period. Regression to the mean is con-trolled for by using the empirical Bayes meth-od which takes into account that exception-ally high crash numbers in the before period usually are associated with a reduction of the number of crashes in the after period, even without any effective safety measure.

Eight of the section control sites are in tun-nels. The results indicate that the crash reduc-tions in tunnels are at least of the same magni-tude as on open roads.

Most tunnel sites have section control in only one direction. These are for the most part steep downhill sections in subsea tunnels. At such sites the number of injury crashes may be reduced by up to 25 per cent and the number of killed or severely injured road users may be reduced by up to 59 per cent.

The evaluation is �nanced by The Norwe-gian Public Roads Administration.

Report: Evaluation of the crash effects of section control. TØI Report 1339/2014 Author: Alena Høye, Report in Norwegian with summary in English, www.bit.ly/1339-2014

The Technology Days October 6-10The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) recently held a conferencenwith the latest news within research and develop-ment on issues related to road and transport in Norway. The confer-ence, which was held in Trondheim, gave the attendees the opportunity to discuss and exchange experi-ences with other professionals working in areas related to road and transport.

It was the 11th time the State Road Admin-istration arranged the Technology Days.

The different sessions were open to everyone and were suitable for professionals, students, consultants, contractors and others who wanted to learn more about current issues and how the Public Roads Administration

and collaborators use research and develop-ment to solve complex problems.

The Technology Days 2014 was one part of the NPRA‘s 150th anniversary celebration.

The scienti�c scope and number of confer-ences was therefore greater than ever this year.

Text: Anne Mari Norheim, NPRA

CONTACTAlena Høye alh@toi.noTØI Norway

Pho

to: T

ØI

Pho

to: R

insp

eed.

com

Eight of the section control sites are in tunnels. The results indicate that the crash reductions in tunnels are at least of the same magnitude as on open roads.

www.nordicroads.com

Pho

to: J

an W

enäl

l

4 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014

Kerbs Can Affect Guardrail FunctionA guardrail is intended to catch a vehicle that is headed in the wrong direction, i.e., off the road, and guide it back onto the road with as little damage to the vehicle as possible, all to reduce the risk of personal injury inside the vehicle. But what happens if a kerb is installed in front of the guardrail?

Pursuant to European standard EN1317, guardrails are currently subject to

compulsory crash testing, and must be CE marked to ensure that they function prop-erly. When the guardrail is later used on a road, it is obviously important that it be in-stalled correctly, in the same con�guration in which it was tested. Failure to do so may compromise the function of the guardrail. Guardrails are not tested with a kerb in front of them.

The guardrail must yield in the event of a collisionMost guardrails are based on the principle that the guardrail posts will be deformed and yield from the ground level and up to the transverse rail, so that the railing, cable or pipe pro�le can form a soft curve and guide

the vehicle back onto the roadway. Each dis-ruption of this system entails a technical risk that reduces the protective capacity of the guardrail.

But what happens if a kerb is installed in front of the guardrail? And why have people begun installing kerbs in front of guardrails? The most likely reason in urban areas is a de-sire to guide storm water toward storm drains: the kerbs frame the road and thus guide the water to the storm drains. This may bene�t the environment, but has any thought been given to the function of the guardrails in the event of a collision? A desire may also exist to protect guardrails from snowplough damage, as the presence of a kerb will reduce the risk of a snowplough reaching the guardrail.

Do kerbs alter vehicle behaviour?We wanted to investigate whether having a kerb in front of a guardrail is consistent with proper guardrail function. With a kerb in place, the portion of the vertical guardrail post that can be deformed and curved on im-pact becomes shorter, so that the guardrail will likely be more rigid than when it was tested. The fear in that case is that the guard-rail will not function at all, or that vehicles may hop the guardrail. In addition, the vehicle wheels would bounce up over the kerb, creat-ing a different impact scenario between

guardrail and vehicle than in the approval testing. A third factor to bear in mind is that the kerb could cause the vehicle to start to overturn in the direction of the guardrail be-fore reaching it. This would be particularly destructive for two-wheeled vehicles, i.e., mopeds, bicycles and motorcycles.

Together with the Swedish Transport Administration, which �nanced the project, VTI and the crash-test course decided to test such an installation. In our view, such instal-lations are improper if we compare them with the test situation as per EN 1317 and in rela-tion to other crash tests involving a guardrail of the EU4 type.

Two tests with kerbs performedWe wanted to test the hypothesis that the vehicle is at risk of hopping the guardrail or being negatively affected by the kerb in some other way. We consequently installed a 15-cm- high granite kerb roughly 48 cm in front of the traf�c side of the guardrail. The guard-rail was positioned so that the middle of the rail was 55 cm above the roadway. We drove a Volvo loaded to a weight of 1,500 kg at a 20° angle, precisely as is customary when testing guardrails in accordance with EN1317-2:2010. However, there was one deviation: we chose speeds different from those pre-scribed by EN1317. One normally drives into

NORDIC NO. 1 2014 | 5

the guardrail at a speed of 110 km/h, but our assessment was that the risk of a car bouncing over the kerb was greater at a lower speed. Speeds of 45 and 90 km/h were therefore cho­sen, and two tests were carried out.

The results were unexpectedResearch must be open to new and unexpect­ed results, even outcomes that one would not believe could occur. Our hypothesis was that the car would bounce and behave poorly, per­haps even going over the guardrail. But our hypothesis was proven wrong. The car’s sus­pension and pneumatic tyres easily compen­sated for the movements that occurred as the front wheel went over the kerb, although the wheel and rim did sustain damage. It is also important to note that this is a good research result, even though it is not the one we had expected.

We learned something new, i.e., that cars can drive over a kerb in front of a guardrail without much harm. Certainly, there may still be a degree of risk for two­wheeled vehicles riding over kerbs and overturning in the direc­tion of the guardrail, particularly as we have not yet tested that scenario.

It is also true that guardrails are not nor­mally tested with a kerb in front of them, and their function cannot be guaranteed with complete certainty when the installation is non­standard.

Be that as it may, we could not prove with

these two tests that there is any risk inherent in placing a kerb in front of the guardrail, at least not with this particular vehicle, this par­ticular kerb design and this particular guard­rail. Perhaps something else may hold true for other combinations.

Certain questions remainWe consequently decided, in consultation with the Swedish Transport Administration, not to continue with more tests; we considered that we had learned enough about the case involving the combination of a kerb in front of

a guardrail, and that this configuration posed no immediate increased risk of improper function. The project has thus been conclud­ed. But questions still remain, despite these tests. Examples can be seen in these two pic­tures below.

Text & photos: Jan Wenäll

The guardrails in the two pictures above are of the same type, but installed in two different ways. Each guardrail has a creased knee on its posts, a knee intended to become deformed under the effects of a collision. The knee in the left-hand picture is situated above the surface of the traffic island, and is likely still functional.

The knee in the right-hand picture has been cast beneath the surface of the concrete and is con-cealed by paving setts on the actual traffic island/sidewalk/cycle path behind the kerb. The type-tested function of the guard rail is like-ly disturbed, and the possibility that the kerb may affect the function of the guardrail cannot be ruled out in this case.

CONTACTJan Wenäll jan.wenall@vti.se VTI Sweden

6 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014 www.nordicroads.com

The EC co-funded project DRIVE C2X provided evidence that cooperative systems work and demonstrated positive impacts on driver behaviour,

-ciency and the environment, with high user acceptance.

DRIVE C2X provided a comprehensive, Europe-wide assessment of cooperative

systems through �eld operational tests. The test results were part of the preparation of the roll-out of cooperative systems in Europe. In DRIVE C2X, more than 750 drivers tested eight safety-related functions of cooperative functions all over Europe. The operational tests took place in seven test sites in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

The tests clearly demonstrated a positive impact of DRIVE C2X. The functions were primarily safety functions, and the impacts, when found, were mostly changes in speed, and its derivatives. Nevertheless, there was clear proof that drivers reacted to information and warning signals provided by the coopera-tive function by reducing their speed in most cases. No changes in strategic behaviour (route choice, mode choice) were found due to the nature of the functions.

To provide some examples of the results, the In-Vehicle Signage (IVS) function had in-deed positive impacts on driver behaviour, especially, in areas where special attention should be paid on vulnerable road users as IVS child sign and IVS ‘pedestrian crossing ahead’ sign had impact of reducing speed in their relevance area. In addition, there were some indications of smoother driving with the stop sign.

The main safety results showed that the functions affected traf�c safety in a positive way by preventing fatalities and injuries. The IVS on speed limit and Weather Warning (WW) showed most potential to decrease fa-talities. Assuming a 100% penetration rate, IVS speed limit that provides continuous in-formation would reduce on average 23% in fatalities and 13% in injuries. WW would lead to 6% less fatalities and 5% less injuries.

From an ef�ciency perspective, functions such as the IVS on speed limit and Green Light Optimized Speed Advisory (GLOSA) indicated signi�cant effects for both the envi-ronment and traf�c ef�ciency.

User acceptance was high with nine out of ten test users welcoming the cooperative sys-tems. Users indicated that they are willing to use function if it available in the vehicle. The qualitative mobility assessment revealed posi-tive impacts. Speci�cally, journey quality is

improved in terms of decreased user uncer-tainty and stress, and feeling of safety and travel comfort.

As conclusion, the DRIVE C2X project in-vestigated Day-one cooperative functions which are primarily focused on improving road safety. The analysis revealed that the safety results are promising for the DRIVE C2X functions individually. When the coop-erative systems are brought to the market, they will be offered in bundles of systems on vehicles, i.e. multiple systems in a package. The safety impacts of the bundles targeting different situations will be larger than the im-pacts of the individual systems.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 270410, DRIVE C2X.

Text: Satu Innamaa

For more information, visit www.drive-c2x.eu or see the Press release 16 July 2014 (www.bit.ly/drive-c2x).Coordinator: Matthias Schulze, Daimler AG

CONTACTSatu Innamaa

VTT, Finland

Pho

to: V

TT

DRIVE C2X Assessed the Impacts of Cooperative Systems

Activated In-Vehicle Signage function in the winter tests of the Finnish Test site

Best PracticeFactory for FreightTransportBESTFACT project collects, develops, evaluates and circulates good ideas for city logistics, green logistics and co-modality as well as e-freight. Best practice descriptions (95 so far) are freely available from project website.

BESTFACT develops, disseminates and enhances best practices and innovations

in freight transport that contribute to com-petitiveness and environmental impact. The core of the BESTFACT concept is to extend existing best practice methodologies towards implementation strategies within an indus-trial environment.

Best practice in BESTFACT is considered as existing approach or solution (industrial busi-ness cases, measures, administrative proce-dures, research results) providing a solution for a relevant problem or challenge in freight transport. Best practice considered for BEST-FACT is characterised by the following attri-butes:• Innovative and feasible approach

beyond the common practice• Business and policy objectives• Considerable and measurable positive

effects on strategic business and policy targets

• Transferable to other companies, initiatives or contexts.

After the second year of the project, we have achieved a total of 95 inventory cases and 30 in-depth reviews of Best Practices. These pro-vide a short overview of solutions and imple-mentation status. QIS can be downloaded from the BESTFACT webpage at www.best-fact.net.

Evaluation is two-phase. First evaluation is targeted to case selection. The second is to

�nd out the impacts. For the second phase VTT has developed an evaluation method in-cluding impact analysis and transferability. The guideline for the methodology has been, while being comprehensive, to keep it rela-tively easy to understand and transparent. The evaluation shows where the case is most usable or appropriate. Evaluation results show the main impacts on strategic targets and topics where the case have positive or un-favourable impacts. Transferability is assessed based on three criteria: innovation, maturity and implementation.

Most of the cases are focused on activities occurring at the business level. One of the core BESTFACT objectives is to better understand the transfer of a solution from one operator to another. Assessment is backed with quantita-tive CBA �gures where applicable.

The BESTFACT conference in 2014 hosted the �rst Sustainability Award for Freight Transport & Logistics ceremony. Winner of the Urban Freight was case DISTRIPOLIS (Geodis) for their urban consolidation centres and battery-electric vehicles. Winner of Green Logistics & Co-modality was case VIKING Train, linking the Baltic and Black Seas to the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. Winner of

eFreight was case KoKoBahn, an electric data exchange platform between seaports, intra-port actors and hinterland railways. The BEST FACT consortium praised the three award winners for their high impact, making them unique in Europe today.

The BESTFACT consortium includes 18 partners made up of European research insti-tutes, universities, international associations and industry partners, �nanced by the Euro-pean 7th RTD Framework. Other actions of the project are implementation support actions, cluster workshops, conferences, in-novative policy schemes, best practice hand-book and knowledge platform.

Text: Antti Permala

CONTACTAntti Permalaantti.permala@vtt.�VTT, Finland

NORDIC NO. 2 2014 | 7

Pho

to: T

TS L

iftec

Oy

Translifter Cassette system is one of the best practices described in the project.

A joint publication with the latest research findings of public road and transport research organisations in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

NORDICROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH

Editorial NotesNordic Road & Transport Research is a joint publication of public road and transport research organisations in the Nordic countries Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The main objective of the publication is to disseminate re search results and news from the institutions, especially to researchers and decision makers. Each institution is responsible for the selection and presentation of the material from its own scope of activities.

Reproduction and quotation of the texts are allow ed if reference is made to the author and source. However, legislation regulates and restricts the right to reproduce the illustrations. Please contact the respective publishing institution for information. Advertising is not accepted.

If you have questions about the contents of the publication, please write to the author or to the respective publish ing organisation.

Requests and notification of address changes are handled by the Editor-in-chief at VTI. Graphic design: Forma Viva, Linköping, Sweden Cover: ThinkstockIssue: 3.200ISSN: 1101-517 9

SWEDEN SWEDISH NATIONAL ROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VTI)VTI is an independent and internationally prominent research institute in the transport sector. Its princi-pal task is to conduct research and development relating to infrastructure, traffic and transport and its operations include all modes of transport. VTI has a total of some 200 employees. VTI’s head office is in Linköping, with branch offices in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Borlänge and Lund.

FINLANDTECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND (VTT) VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is a con-tract research organisation with a staff of 2,800. In this joint publication, the VTT expertise areas cover research and develop-ment of transportation, logistics and road structures. The work is carried out in five research groups employing a staff of 60.

NORWAYNORWEGIAN PUBLIC ROADSADMINISTRATION (NPRA)The Norwegian Public Roads Administration is one of the administrative agencies under the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Norway. NPRA is responsible for the development and management of public roads and road traffic, as well as the Vehicle Department. This responsibility includes research and development of all areas related to road transport and the implementation of R&D results.

INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS (TØI)The Institute of Transport Economics is the national institution for transport research and development in Norway. The main objectives of the Institute are to carry out applied research and promote the application and use of results through consultative assistance to public authorities, the transport industry and others. TØI is an independent research foundation employing about one hundred persons.

ICELANDTHE ICELANDIC ROAD AND COASTAL ADMINISTRATION (IRCA)The IRCA’s mission is to provide the Icelandic soci-ety with a road system in accordance with its needs and to provide a service with the aim of smooth and safe traffic on land and on sea. The number of employees is about 300. Applied research and development and to some extent also basic research concerning road construction, maintenance, traffic and safety is performed or directed by the IRCA. Development division is responsible for road research in Iceland.

VTI, SWEDENKarin AnderssonE-mail: nordic@vti.sewww.vti.se

VTT, FINLANDKari MäkeläE-mail: kari.makela@vtt.fiwww.vtt.fi

IRCA, ICELAND G. Petúr Matthiasson E-mail: gpm@vegagerdin.is www.vegagerdin.is

NPRA, NORWAYAnne Mari Norheim (NPRA)E-mail: anne.norheim@vegvesen.nowww.vegvesen.no

TØI, NORWAYHarald Aas (TØI)E-mail: ha@toi.nowww.toi.no

Contact – editorial board