orient/east -med sub -corridor assessment – roads,...

ORIENT/EAST-MED SUB-CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT – Roads, Serbia

1 | P a g e

Sub-corridor assessment on Orient/East-Med Corridor (Serbia)

Key findings

• Observed transport infrastructure is Road Orient/East-Med Corridor - parts of Corridor X and route

7 through Serbia, connecting Belgrade and Macedonian border which is mostly in good condition

and Niš and administrative border with Kosovo* which is planned for upgrade. Total length is about

450 km.

• Top 5 threats identified for further deeper analysis are: Loss of driving ability due to reduced

vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards, Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or

collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers, Erosion and slide of embankments due

to heavy showers, Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in

catchment area and Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards.

• Threats prioritized are mostly related to causes of heavy showers, and snow and blizzards. For each

of the top ranked threats several vulnerable locations on network are indicated and pointed at the

detailed road map.

• For each indicated location, in relation to specific threats, adaptation measures were proposed,

including general measures as well as implementation of specific measures and new technologies in

road maintenance, highlighting importance of information systems.

• A recommendation is given to the ClimaCor methodology in terms including the fog as a threat with

very high impact to road safety.

1. Transport infrastructure

Road infrastructure under review represents the part of TEN-T

Orient/East-Med Corridor from City of Belgrade to the south –

or Pan-European Corridor X from Belgrade to Macedonian

border (total length about 370 km) and connection from City of

Niš to Merdare - administrative border with Kosovo* (total

length about 77 km). From Belgrade to Macedonian border

there is a mainly full highway profile with physically divided

directions – 3 lanes each, except the part through gorge

Grdelica near Macedonian border which is under construction

and upgrading. Connection Niš-Merdare (Route 7) is 2 lanes

road mainly in poor condition. This part of network is planned

for future investment and upgrading to highway level. The part

of indicative TEN-T network, the Corridor Orient/East-Med and

position of the part of road network through Serbia is shown by

figures 1 and 2.

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

Figure 1: Position of observed part of Orient/East-Med Corridor relative to overall Europe TNT-T corridor network


2 | P a g e

Figure 2: Position of analyzed part of the road network relative to overall network of first and second-class roads of Serbia (South from Belgrade)

According to SEETO Core and Comprehensive road network, parts of analyzed road infrastructure (light

gray) are including parts of Pan-European Corridor X and Route 7. Following infographics (Figures 3-5)

show current infrastructure assets and condition on network.

Figure 4 – Infographic information on Corridor X (length, condition, average travel time and

traffic)

Figure 3 – Infographic basic information on Corridor X


3 | P a g e

Figure 6 shows Traffic density at Core Road Network in SEE region including main bottlenecks at the

network.

Figure 6: Average Annual Daily Traffic and main bottlenecks on SEETO Core Road network

In addition to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) visible as high on Corridor X, this road also has

commercial importance for transiting Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV), as seen in the following figure.

Figure 7: Structure of origin of HGVs transiting Serbia - 2010 (source: Serbian Customs)

Figure 5: Infographic information on Corridor X (infrastructure constraints)


4 | P a g e

Current condition, length, average travel time and traffic as well as infrastructure constraints of part of

Route 7 from Niš to Priština (node “Doljevac” on Corridor X to administrative border “Merdare”) are

shown at figures 8 and 9 (light gray). This part of observed network is mainly in poor condition with

significant infrastructure constraints and heavy terrain. Also, the traffic between Prokuplje and Merdare

is lowest along the total Route 7, due to actual situation and low transport demands†.

Figure 8: Infographic information on Route 7 (length, condition, average travel time and traffic)

Figure 9: Infographic information on Route 7 (infrastructure constraints)

In terms of infrastructure assets and current

condition of observed part of road network, it is

obvious that additional efforts are needed on

parts of Corridor X (Belgrade bypass and

Grdelica gorge) where intensive works are

ongoing, as well as on Route 7.

Concerning SEETO Comprehensive network and

Core network, completed roads and planned

future investments are given by figure 10.

Figure 10: Completed and planned Core and Comprehensive SEETO network

† Source of all infographics and SEETO maps: South East Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO)


5 | P a g e

Regarding Road safety concerns, Public

weighted suffering risk in traffic accidents by

municipalities on the area under study is given

in figure 11. Correlation is not visible along the

Corridor except in south part where

Municipality “Vladičin Han” is under higher risk

and having in mind low population, it is

possible that higher risk is related to conditions

on observed part of corridor.

Figure 11: Road Safety statistics – Public Weighted Suffering Risk of Traffic Accidents by Municipalities

With regard to aspects of topography, from Belgrade hilly terrain (about 40 km) the route descends to

the valleys of the Danube River in the beginning, following the valley of Great Morava in a long part to

Pojate (the node of City of Krusevac). From that point 20 km to Deligrad the road passes through hilly

terrain and again descends along the valley of River of Southern Morava. From the city of Nis, the road

goes to a hilly area and from Leskovac heavy terrain (Grdelica gorge) all the way to Macedonian border.

Road Connection from Niš to Pristina beginning at node on Corridor X near the City of Niš and passing

through plain terrain to the City of Prokuplje, further continuing through hilly terrain to the City of

Kursumlija. From Kuršumlija to administrative border with Kosovo* terrain is mostly hilly to heavy.

Following figures show the terrain, as well as landslide‡ and floods possibilities§. Concerning vulnerability

to landslide and flooding it is visible that observed parts of Corridor are in the zone of medium to high

risk, which can also be confirmed historically taking into account the table showing natural disasters in

near past (table 1) where floods are dominant together with extremely low temperatures.

Figure 12: From left: 12a – traffic density and terrain, 12b – possibility of landslide, 12c – possibility of floods

‡ Faculty of mining and geology of University of Belgrade: www.rgf.bg.ac.rs § World Health Organization: www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/databases

12a 12b 12c


6 | P a g e

Table 1: Main natural disasters in Serbia (source: International Disaster Database www.emdat.be)

Disaster No Type Date Total affected

2016-0076 Flood 6.3.2016 7000

2014-0329 Flood 15.9.2014 7000

2014-0164 Flood 13.5.2014 49600

2014-0128 Flood 16.4.2014 3000

2012-0019 Extreme low temperature 28.1.2012 70000

2012-0012 Extreme low temperature 6.1.2012 18234

2010-0574 Earthquake 3.11.2010 27030

2010-0101 Flood 1.3.2010 3150

2009-0530 Flood 6.11.2009 3210

2007-0562 Flood 25.11.2007 12370

2. Climate Concerns

i) Current threats, consequences, likelihood and risks

According to the 15 interviewed participants and to the results of survey, the 10 most frequently chosen

threats among 41 offered (see Annex I) are:

1. Increased ground subsidence, rock fall,

landslide, or collapse on transport

infrastructure due to heavy showers (T3)

2. Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers

(overland flow after precipitation,

groundwater level increase) (T5)

3. Reduced ability to perform general

maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards

(snow and ice removal) (T38)

4. Erosion and slide of embankments due to

heavy showers (T2)

5. Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal

expansion; migration of liquid asphalt,

asphalt rutting due to heatwaves (T18)

6. Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

(T8)

7. Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility and vehicle control due to heavy showers (T6)

8. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (T37)

9. Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40)

10. Cracking, embrittlement due to frost heave and thermal expansion due to snowfall/blizzards (T41)

Figure 13: Top 10 threats prioritized among 41


7 | P a g e

Further analysis was conducted on these top 10 prioritized threats including weighing according to

severity of consequences and likelihood of each threat to route availability and human safety.

Respondents were estimating each selected threat according to the following key:

Table 2: Key for estimating consequences of threats

Level ROUTE AVAILABILITY/USABILITY HUMAN & ROUTE SAFETY HAZARD

1 Negligible impact (a few hours) Negligible impact (light material damage, light injuries)

2 Minimal negative impact (a day) Accidents causing temporary loss of health (material damage, slight injuries)

3 Serious impact (several days, up to a month) Accidents causing permanent loss of health (serious material damage, heavy injuries)

4 Catastrophic impact (> a month of) Catastrophic influence, deadly danger (serious material damage, heavy injuries, casualties)

Figure 14: Level of consequences of each threat prioritized

As seen in Figure 14, ranking of threats by the level of consequences shows differences in their

importance. Regarding human and route safety, the top 3 ranked threats are T40 (loss of driving ability

due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards), T2 (Erosion and slide of embankments due to

heavy showers) and T5 (fluvial flooding due to heavy showers), while concerning route availability top 3

threats are T38 (reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards), T5 (fluvial

flooding due to heavy showers) and T3 (Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on

transport infrastructure due to heavy showers). Diagram in figure 14 shows the level of consequences

regarding the impact on availability and safety of each prioritized threat.

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

3.3

3.1

3.1

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.9

1.7

2.0

2.8

2.9

2.3

2.5

2.8

1.8


8 | P a g e

Next step was to analyze the likelihood of occurrence of each threat under current meteorological and

climate conditions in order to calculate final risk of each threat. Level of likelihood is estimated through

four-level scale given by following table.

Table 3: Key for estimating level of likelihood of threats in current meteorological conditions

Figure 15: Ranking of threats according to estimated likelihood under current climate conditions

Concerning only likelihood of occurrences under current meteorological conditions, threats are ranked

and shown by figure 15. Highest probability of occurrence is given to threat T2 (Erosion and slide of

embankments due to heavy showers). Next four threats with similar likelihood are T40 (loss of driving

ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards), T2 (Erosion and slide of embankments

due to heavy showers), T37 (Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to

snowfall/blizzards), T8 (Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in

catchment area) and T6 (Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility and vehicle control due to heavy

showers). It is interesting that threats T3 (Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse

on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers) and T5 (Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers)

estimated with high severity of consequences are low ranked by likelihood under current climate

conditions. This leads us to the concept of risk.

To calculate the risk, represented as likelihood of occurrence of the threat taking into account severity

of consequences, it is necessary to calculate weighted severity of consequences. It has been done by

including additional key parameter which shows general relative concern between human and route

safety and route availability. Following diagram (Figure 16) shows the designation between those two

consequences, used as weighting factor.

Level LIKELIHOOD

1 Very seldom (once every 50 years)

2 Seldom (once every 10 to 50 years)

3 Sometimes (once every 3 to 10 years)

4 Often (more than once every 3 years)


9 | P a g e

As expected, under current conditions of climate, respondents gave the priority to safety because the

observed route is very seldom unavailable, but traffic accidents happen on daily basis. One of the

explanations given at the workshop is the fact that when the route is unavailable, the safety level is on

maximum due to no traffic at all. After explanation and re-checking, relative relation for severity

weighting is confirmed.

By multiplying the average weighted severity by likelihood of each threat the risk is calculated. Risk of

each prioritized threat and ranking of threats by their risk is shown by following two diagrams.

Final result of analysis under current meteorological and climate conditions shows the necessity of

including both, likelihood and severity, in risk analysis. Obvious example is threat T3 (Increased ground

subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers), which has

low likelihood, but due to very high severity of consequences it was ranked third by total risk. As shown

by figure 18, threats with higher risk under current climate conditions are T2 (Erosion and slide of

embankments due to heavy showers), T40 (Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to

snowfall/blizzards) and T3.

Figure 16: Weighting factor – relative concern between

consequences of route availability and human and route safety

Figure 17: Risk of each threat under current conditions Figure 18: Rank of threats by Risk under current conditions


10 | P a g e

ii) Future risks.

Using the same methodology, future risk factors

of each threat are calculated with same severity

(weighted average), but including the likelihood

under foreseen climate change conditions.

Rank of threats concerning only their likelihood

under foreseen climate conditions is given in

Figure 19.

Comparing to rank by likelihood in current

conditions, threat T2 (Erosion and slide of

embankments due to heavy showers) is still

holding top position and significant change is

visible only regarding threat T8 (Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods

of rain in catchment area) which is expected to be more likely under foreseen climate conditions.

Using the same average weighted severity multiplied by likelihood of each threat’s estimated likelihood

of occurrences in future changed climate conditions, the risk and ranking of threats are shown by

diagrams in figures 20 and 21.

The final result is that top 5 threats for further deeper analyses are T40 (Loss of driving ability due to

reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards), T3 (Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide,

or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers), T2 (Erosion and slide of embankments

due to heavy showers), T8 (Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of

rain in catchment area) and T38 (Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to

snowfall/blizzards). Comparing to Risk under current conditions, top 3 threats are the same, but threats

T8 and T38 are foreseen in top 5 instead of T37 (Damage to energy supply, traffic communication

networks due to snowfall/blizzards) and T6 (Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility and vehicle

control due to heavy showers).

Figure 19 – Rank of threats by Risk under future changed climate conditions

Figure 19 - Ranking of threats according to estimated likelihood under foreseen climate change conditions

Figure 20 - Risk of each threat under future climate change conditions


11 | P a g e

During discussion at the workshop, one important fact was highlighted by climate experts: beside the historical and statistical data and experience on threats caused by extremely low temperatures, heavy snow and blizzards, the foreseen climate changes are anticipated to lead to an increase in average temperature and decrease in the occurrence of extremely low temperatures, snow, ice and blizzards. Having in mind this and the possible decrease of likelihood of this group of threats, as well as possible increasing of severity and likelihood of threats caused by heavy showers, participants decided to re-rank the final result giving priority to heavy-showers-caused threats. Final top 5 threats are shown in the following table (4) together with key locations perceived by each threat:

Table 4: Top 5 ranked threats in terms of risks under foreseen climate change conditions, and the corresponding vulnerable locations

Rank

Threat Illustration5 Location

1. (T3) Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers

Aleksinac, Begaljičko brdo, Grdelica

2. (T40) Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards

Medveđa, Ražanj

3. (T2) Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers

Beg. brdo, Kolari, Grdelica, Kuršumlija,

Srpska kuća

4. (T8) Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

Mijatovac, Kuršumlija

5. (T38) Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal)

Bubanj potok, Ražanj

5 Please reffer to Annex I to see full description and illustration of threats


12 | P a g e

Figure 21: Locations identified as possible vulnerable points of certain threats

Bubanj Potok, T38 Kolari, T2

Begaljičko brdo, T3, T2 Mijatovac, T8

Ražanj, T40, T38 Aleksinac, T3

Kuršumlija, T2, T8

Grdelica, T3, T2 Srpska kuća, T2


13 | P a g e

3. Recommendations

Regarding the locations indicated as vulnerable possible points on the network against the top 5 ranked

threats, participants proposed some general and some very specific adaptation measures which are

expected to ensure lower level of negative impacts (or elimination) of each of the op 5 threats in the

future.

Adaptation measures indicated are mostly proposed by participants experienced in transport and

construction and defined according to current undergoing construction works as well as anticipating

usual lifespan of well-maintained road transport infrastructure.

Rank Threat Location Envisaged adaptation measures

1

T3. Increased ground subsidence, rock

fall, landslide, or collapse on transport

infrastructure due to heavy showers

Aleksinac,

Begaljičko brdo,

Grdelica

- Geotechnical and Hydro-technical measures

for adaptation of local surrounding objects

and terrain

2

T40. Loss of driving ability due to

reduced vehicle control due to

snowfall/blizzards

Medveđa,

Ražanj

- Snow barriers

- Early warning system, informing both road

users and road authority

- Using of new and improved materials for

salting of the roads in winter conditions

3 T2. Erosion and slide of embankments

due to heavy showers

Beg. brdo,

Kolari, Grdelica,

Kuršumlija,

Srpska kuća

- Use of different geotechnical, biotechnical

and hydro-technical measures and works

aiming to stabilize the embankments and its

sliding and erosion

4

T8. Failure of flood defense systems of

rivers and lakes due to long periods of

rain in catchment area

Mijatovac,

Kuršumlija

- Better and effective maintenance of water

flows and flood control systems

- Alternative routes

5

T38. Reduced ability to perform

general maintenance due to

snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice

removal)

Bubanj potok,

Ražanj

- Automatic road surface salting system on

snow and ice occurrences

- Early warning system

- Snow barriers

Indicated Geotechnical and Hydro-technical measures related to T3 (Increased ground subsidence, rock

fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers) and T2 (Erosion and slide of

embankments due to heavy showers) includes terrain redesign and ground works in order to ensure

faster drainage of surface water, stabilization of ground and embankments.

Measures indicated in relation to T8 (Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long

periods of rain in catchment area) are focused to better maintenance of water flows (cleaning of canals,

removing obstacles and construction of additional flood barriers) pooled from experience from past few

years where one of the main causes of flooding was insufficient capacity of water flows due to poor

maintenance. The second level measure is ensuring of alternative routes for bypassing of vulnerable

points.


14 | P a g e

As a common and prioritized measure for threats T40 (Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle

control due to snowfall/blizzards) and T38 (Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to

snowfall/blizzards) is implementation of Early warning systems dedicated to both, users and road

authorities and winter maintenance services, ensuring fast and reliable meteorological information and

predictions, traffic information, two-way information transfer, multi-channel information distribution

(radio, internet, dedicated information signs, special communication lines, public media etc.)

Also, in order to have fast, effective and efficient winter road maintenance, some specific new

technologies are proposed (built-in systems for road salting, new materials for faster defrosting) as well

as construction of dedicated barriers for preventing of snow-drifting (snow barriers).

Regarding CLIMCOR II methodology, it was concluded that methodology itself is acceptable and

approved by participants, with recommendation to include the fog as an important threat to road safety

and even availability on observed corridor in current and foreseen climate change conditions.

Appendix I

Workshop participants:

Stakeholders and project implementation

- Mr. Radovan Nikčević, Regional Cooperation Council

- Mr. Dejan Lasica, SEE Transport Observatory

- Mr. Nedim Begović, SEE Transport Observatory

- Mr. Jerome Simpson, Regional Environmental Center

- Ms. Natalia Ciobanu, Regional Environmental Center

- Ms. Jelena Tripković, REC CO Srbija

- Mr. Dušan Sakulski, DiMTEC UFS South Africa, FTN UNS Serbia

- Mr. Nebojša Jevtić, CCIS

Infrastructure practitioners (Invited experts):

Mr. Momir Kočović, MDLK Advice – Project management and construction supervision

Mr. Milorad Pejović, AD Vojvodina Put, STRABAG Group – Road maintenance

Transport demand management (Invited experts):

Mr. Branko Milovanović PhD, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering of University of Belgrade, Transport

management

Mr. Ivan Belošević PhD, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering of University of Belgrade, Infrastructure

Planning, project and maintenance

Climate Change Experts (Invited experts):

Ms. Mirjam Vujadinović Mandić, PhD Meteorology and Climatology, Faculty of Agriculture of University of

Belgrade

Ms. Isabel Katharina Airas Rodrigez, Center for Environment protection of Chamber of Commerce and Industry

of Serbia, Circular Economy Expert (excused)

Decision makers – Transport (Invited experts):

Mr. Đorđe Mitrović, Sector for Environment protection, Public Company Roads of Serbia


15 | P a g e

Ms. Jelena Vasilijević, Environment protection supervision, Corridors of Serbia Company

Ms. Mirjana Trifunović, Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure (excused)

Mr. Zlatko Draško, Infrastructure Serbian Railway Company, Environment protection department

Decision makers – Environment (Invited experts):

Ms. Vesna Šabanović, Government of City of Belgrade, Directorate for Environment protection

Ms. Danijela Božanić, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment protection, Department for climate changes

(excused)

NGO-Environment (Invited experts):

Mr. Zvezdan Kalmar, CEKOR – Center for Ecology and sustainable development

Transport association (Invited experts):

Mr. Miloš Kosanić, Association for transport of Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia

PhD Students (Invited experts):

Ms. Dragana Petrović, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering of University of Belgrade

Mr. Ivan Ivanović, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering of University of Belgrade

Survey respondents:

1 Mr. Momir Kočović, MDLK Advice

2 Mr. Milorad Pejović, AD Vojvodina Put, STRABAG Group

3 Mr. Branko Milovanović PhD, FTTE, University of Belgrade

4 Mr. Ivan Belošević PhD, FTTE, University of Belgrade

5 Ms. Mirjam Vujadinović Mandić, PhD, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade

6 Ms. Isabel Katharina Airas Rodrigez, Center for Environment protection, CCIS

7 Mr. Đorđe Mitrović, Public Company Roads of Serbia

8 Mr. Zlatko Draško, Infrastructure Serbian Railway Company

9 Ms. Vesna Šabanović, Directorate for Environment protection, City of Belgrade

10 Ms. Danijela Božanić, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment protection

11 Mr. Zvezdan Kalmar, CEKOR – Center for Ecology and sustainable development

12 Mr. Miloš Kosanić, Association for transport, CCIS

13 Ms. Dragana Petrović, FTTE, University of Belgrade

14 Mr. Ivan Ivanović, FTTE, University of Belgrade

15 Mr. Nebojša Jevtić, CCIS

orient/east -med sub -corridor assessment – roads,...

Documents