adbtf14_urs urban road safety audits in korea

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

[email protected]

Korea Transport Institute

Urban road safety audits in Korea

- Evaluating safety performance-
mailto:han@mailto:han@


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


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


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)


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


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


7/32

7About iRAP

Assessment Process


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


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


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


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


12/32

12Risk Map

Results

Crashes per kilometre Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled


13/32

13Risk Map

Results Crashes per kilometre


14/32

14Risk Map

Results Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled


15/32

15Risk Map

Crashes per kilometre profile by route

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


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


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


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


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


20/32

Star Rating 20

National Road Route 3


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


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


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


24/32

Star Rating 24

0.44 0.29 4.755.48

Overall RPS


25/32

Star Rating 25

RPS Profile (Natioanal Route 3)

5.48


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)


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


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


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


30/32


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


31/32


All roads maintains Design Standards, but low RPS?Design Standard is just for minimum

DS cannot consider interaction between different factors


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

adbtf14_urs urban road safety audits in korea

Documents