Road safety impact assessment irf psarianos 2011
- 1. International Road Federation Road 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. Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Infrastructure Safety Management ONLY for the Trans-European Road Network Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 2
- 3. Road Road Safety Road Safety Road Safety Network Impact Audits Inspections Safety Assessment Management PROACTIVE Road Safety Impact Assessment: A Proactive Design Decision Process for Road Safety Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 3
- 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 Alternative AIM of RIA for New & Old Roads Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 4
- 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 Content Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 5
- 6. Denmark Germany Finland Lithuania Netherlands Portugal Slovakia RIA: An Old Story (more or less) for some Members States Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 6
- 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 ratio Two Types of RIA Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 7
- 8. The Achilles Heel: Quantification Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 8
- 9. Road Safety? Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 9
- 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. Different Sections and Characters (after H. Heinz) A:Local Entrance Street B: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. Can Someone define EXACTLY for each Section the appropriate: 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. 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. RISK LOSS Number _ of _ Crashes Number _ of _ Victims Roadsafetyimpact Exposure Exposure Number _ of _ Crashes Safety Impact Assessment Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 14
- 15. • E(λ)=Expected Number of Accidents • Q=Traffic Volume for Major & Minor Road • β=Elasticity • γi=Coefficients • xi=Risk Factors • Usual Prediction Model Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 15
- 16. Example: Motorways Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 16
- 17. Accident Modification Factors (AMF) Accident Modification Factor is a constant or equation that represents the change in safety following a change in the design or operation of a facility. Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 17
- 18. Crash Reduction Factor: CRF Crash Reduction Factor is a constant that represents the portion of crashes reduced as a result of a safety 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. CRF: Nw CRF 1 Nw / o CRF = 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 Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 19
- 20. Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 20
- 21. Volumes change on Network: RIA on Network Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 21
- 22. Volumes??? Motorway Attiki Odos Motorway Korinthos-Patra Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 22
- 23. Experience on Traffic Forecasts Source: 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. % Errors in Traffic Forecasts (Flybjerg et al., 2006) underestimation overestimation Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 24
- 25. •Accident Data •Network Data •Road Characteristics •User Behavior Input •Etc •Technical •Juridical Intervention •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. SEROES Expert System Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 26
- 27. Safety Impact Assessment: Example Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 27
- 28. Safety Impact Assessment: Example continued Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 28
- 29. Safety Impact Assessment: Cost? Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 29
- 30. By EZRA HAUER Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 30
- 31. By Ezra Hauer, TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 31
- 32. By Ezra Hauer, TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 32
- 33. By Ezra Hauer, TRB 2011 Cost-Benefit Analysis Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 33
- 34. Public Consensus: For Example Access Management Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 34
- 35. Typical Example: people assess property rights higher than road safety Public consensus, ie is prohibition of property access possible? Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 35
- 36. Road Safety Impact Assessment Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 36
- 37. QUANTIFICATION PROBLEMS Knowledge Gap Data Sets Modelling Calibration Factors Statistical Evidence Traffic Forecasting CBA Weaknesses RIA: Conclusions Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 37
- 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: Conclusions Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 38
- 39. RIA: Conclusions Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 39
- 40. Engineer’s Role in Informal RIA 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. International Road Federation Basil Psarianos, Nat’l Tech. Univ. Athens, Greece [email protected] Providing Infrastructure that improves Road Safety Bucharest, May 10-11, 2011 41