Road safety impact assessment irf psarianos 2011

677 views
565 views

Published on

Difficulties in Implementing the Road Safety Impact Assessment process

Published in: Design
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
677
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
114
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Road safety impact assessment irf psarianos 2011

  1. 1. International Road FederationRoad Safety Impact Assessment { Quantification Challenges for Worldwide Application Basil Psarianos, Professor National Technical University of Athens, Greece Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011
  2. 2. Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Infrastructure Safety ManagementONLY for the Trans-European Road Network Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 2
  3. 3. Road Road Safety Road Safety Road Safety Network Impact Audits Inspections Safety Assessment Management PROACTIVERoad Safety Impact Assessment: A ProactiveDesign Decision Process for Road SafetyProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 3
  4. 4.  Strategic Level of Decision Making for Road Design and Planning  New Roads and Substantial Modifications of existing Roads  Safety Implications of Design and Planning Alternatives  Safe Route Planning  All Road Projects  Prerequisite for Approval of any Road Project  Safety Considerations associated with Alternative selected  Cost-beneficial Component of AlternativeAIM of RIA for New & Old RoadsProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 4
  5. 5.  Elements of a road safety impact assessment: (a) problem definition; (b) current situation and ‘do nothing’ scenario; (c) road safety objectives; (d) analysis of impacts on road safety of the proposed alternatives; (e) comparison of the alternatives, including cost-benefit analysis; (f) presentation of the range of possible solutions.  Elements to be taken into account: (a) fatalities and accidents, reduction targets against ‘do nothing’ scenario; (b) route choice and traffic patterns; (c) possible effects on the existing networks (e.g. exits, intersections, level crossings); (d) road users, including vulnerable users (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists); (e) traffic (e.g. traffic volume, traffic categorization by type); (f) seasonal and climatic conditions; (g) presence of a sufficient number of safe parking areas; (h) seismic activity.RIA ContentProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 5
  6. 6.  Denmark  Germany  Finland  Lithuania  Netherlands  Portugal  SlovakiaRIA: An Old Story (more or less)for some Members StatesProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 6
  7. 7.  One Dimensional (Major Roadwork, Road Facility, Reconstruction)  Engineering Judgment  Literature Review  Local Network Impact  C-B Analysis  Two Dimensional (Areal Level)  Baseline Situation (year 0)  Future Situation w/o Measures (Autonomous Development)  Road Safety Alternatives  C-B Analysis  Optimization of Alternatives for best C-B ratioTwo Types of RIAProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 7
  8. 8. The Achilles Heel:QuantificationProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 8
  9. 9. Road Safety?Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 9
  10. 10. There is actually NO Safety!Instead there is RISKRISK (R) is a combination of Crash Severity (SH) and its Probability (p):  R=SH*p or R   p(SH)  d(SH) Safety Impact Assessment Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 10
  11. 11. Different Sections and Characters (after H. Heinz)A:Local Entrance StreetB:Local Entrance Street D:Central Square F:Local Entrance Street C:Shopping Street E:Shopping Street G:Local Entrance Street VII SEMINARIO Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 11
  12. 12. Can Someone define EXACTLY for each Section theappropriate: Design Speed? Cross-Section? Curvature? Intersection Form and Type? Equipment? Traffic Characteristics? ETC? Safety Impact Assessment Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 12
  13. 13. Evidence-Based Road Safety: The conscientious and judicious use of { current best evidence in providing road safety for individuals, facilities, and transportation systems. Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 13
  14. 14. RISK LOSS Number _ of _ Crashes Number _ of _ VictimsRoadsafetyimpact  Exposure   Exposure Number _ of _ Crashes Safety Impact Assessment Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 14
  15. 15. • E(λ)=Expected Number of Accidents • Q=Traffic Volume for Major & Minor Road • β=Elasticity • γi=Coefficients • xi=Risk Factors •Usual Prediction ModelProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 15
  16. 16. Example: MotorwaysProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 16
  17. 17. Accident Modification Factors (AMF)Accident Modification Factor is a constantor equation that represents the change insafety following a change in the design oroperation of a facility.Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 17
  18. 18. Crash Reduction Factor: CRFCrash Reduction Factor is aconstant that represents the portionof crashes reduced as a result of asafety improvement (e.g., add a left-turn bay)Reduction location or Crash at a specific Factor:along a specific road segment. CRF Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 18
  19. 19. CRF: Nw CRF  1 Nw / oCRF = crash reduction factor associated with a specific improvement; Nw = expected number of crashes with the improvement, crashes/yr;and Nw/o = expected number of crashes without the improvement,crashes/yr.Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 19
  20. 20. Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 20
  21. 21. Volumes change on Network: RIAon NetworkProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 21
  22. 22. Volumes??? Motorway Attiki OdosMotorway Korinthos-Patra Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 22
  23. 23. Experience on Traffic ForecastsSource: Halkias, B., Tyrogianni; H.:PPP Projects inInfrastructure that improves Road Safety Tollway, Route-Roads No. 342, 2008 Providing Greece: The Case of Attika Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 23
  24. 24. % Errors in Traffic Forecasts (Flybjerg et al., 2006) underestimation overestimation Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 24
  25. 25. •Accident Data •Network Data •Road Characteristics •User Behavior Input •Etc •Technical •JuridicalIntervention •Etc Scenarios •Total Costs of Measures •Crash Modifications •Presentation of Alternative Measures (scenarios) for comparison Output GIS-Support Tool Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 25
  26. 26. SEROES Expert SystemProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 26
  27. 27. Safety Impact Assessment:ExampleProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 27
  28. 28. Safety Impact Assessment:Example continuedProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 28
  29. 29. Safety Impact Assessment:Cost?Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 29
  30. 30. By EZRA HAUERCost-Benefit AnalysisProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 30
  31. 31. By Ezra Hauer,TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 31
  32. 32. By Ezra Hauer,TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 32
  33. 33. By Ezra Hauer,TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 33
  34. 34. Public Consensus: For Example AccessManagementProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 34
  35. 35. Typical Example: people assess property rights higher than road safetyPublic consensus, ie is prohibition of propertyaccess possible?Providing Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 35
  36. 36. Road Safety ImpactAssessmentProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 36
  37. 37. QUANTIFICATION PROBLEMS  Knowledge Gap  Data Sets  Modelling  Calibration Factors  Statistical Evidence  Traffic Forecasting  CBA WeaknessesRIA: ConclusionsProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 37
  38. 38. Setup a Plan and Action Program at International / EU and National / Local Level to address the quantification problems of Road Safety Impact Assessment and get the public consensus for it!RIA: ConclusionsProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 38
  39. 39. RIA: ConclusionsProviding Infrastructure that improves Road SafetyBucharest, May 10-11, 2011 39
  40. 40. Engineer’s Role in InformalRIA Application SAFETY: NOMINAL vs SUBSTANTIVE SAFETY i.e.  Guidelines vs Performance, or  Rhetoric vs Reality FLEXIBILITY to make Professional Design Choices AND Assuming Responsibility for them PRACTICAL DESIGN RIA: Conclusions Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 40
  41. 41. International Road Federation Basil Psarianos, Nat’l Tech. Univ. Athens, Greece bpsarian@mail.ntua.gr Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 41

×