sa task5.5 tunisia final 5sept - saferafrica · sa task5.5 tunisia final 5sept - saferafrica ... 1...

Funded under European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - Grant agreement No 724029

September 19 of 80 SA_Task5.5 _TUNISIA

Project SAFER AFRICA

Work Package: WP5 – Road safety and traffic management capacity reviews

Deliverable: D5.19 - Assessment of Standards for Road design and vehicle safety in TUNISIA: Proposed amendments and enabling project plans

Version FINAL

Date 5 September 2019

Report authors: A. Maghraoui, S. Zammataro, E. Fernandez, D. Sengupta

2

Document Control Sheet

Document title Assessment of Standards for Road design and vehicle safety in TUNISIA: Proposed amendments and enabling project plans

Work package: WP5 – Road safety and traffic management capacity reviews

Deliverable D5.19

Version FINAL

Last version date 5 September 2019

Status

File Name SA_Task5.5_TUNISIA_FINAL

Number of pages 80

Dissemination level Public

Responsible author A. Maghraoui, S. Zammataro, E. Fernandez, D. Sengupta

Editors

Versioning and Contribution History

Version Date Author/Editor Contributions Description / Comments

First Draft 2 August A. Maghraoui Partial draft

Second Draft

6 August S. Zammataro, E. Fernandez

Complement draft

Third Draft

20 August S. Zammataro Revise and amend

Third Draft 29 August

D. Sengupta, A. Maghraoui Review and edits

Third Draft 30 August

J. Funk Editing

Final Draft

5 September S. Zammataro Comments from internal review processed

Funded under European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - Grant agreement No 724029

September 19 of 80 SA_Task5.5 _TUNISIA

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Road design standards ........................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Vehicle standards ................................................................................................................ 7

2 Consolidation of the capacity review and literature results ................................................... 9

2.1 Safe Vehicles ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Road design practices ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Current road network .............................................................................................. 10

2.2.2 Road safety design and operational checks ............................................................. 11

2.2.3 Speed limits in Tunisia ............................................................................................. 12

3 Assessment of vehicle and road design standards and legislation ....................................... 13

3.1 Vehicle standards................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Comparison with international vehicle standards and recommendations to improve conformity and uniformity ....................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Geometric design standards for roads ............................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Perceived importance of design elements ................................................................... 17

3.2.2 Importance of design factors in Tunisian guidelines ................................................22

4 Prioritising the challenges for safe vehicle and road design standards in Tunisia .............. 25

4.1 Vehicle design standards ................................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Institutional level ......................................................................................................... 25

4.1.2 Organisational level................................................................................................. 25

4.1.3 Operational level ......................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Road design standards ...................................................................................................... 25

4.2.1 Prioritising road design elements for guidelines for single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia. 26

4.2.2 Prioritising road design elements for guidelines for dual carriageway rural roads in Tunisia. 27

5 Development of an overall prioritisation strategy and formulation of the most promising improvement opportunities for vehicle and road design standards in Tunisia.......................... 29

5.1 Vehicle design standards .................................................................................................. 29

5.1.1 Diagnosis .................................................................................................................... 29

5.1.2 Support project ........................................................................................................... 32

4

5.2 Geometric design standards ............................................................................................. 32

5.2.1 Single carriageway rural roads ..................................................................................... 33

5.2.2 Dual carriageway roads ........................................................................................... 38

6 Recommendations for improvement projects/practices in Tunisia ...................................... 45

6.1 Road design standards ...................................................................................................... 45

6.2 Recommendations for improvement of vehicle standards ............................................... 46

7 References .............................................................................................................................. 47

8 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................ 49

8.1 SaferAfrica assessment of the relevance for safety of Intersafe design items to Tunisian design guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 49

8.1.1 Interurban single carriageway roads ........................................................................... 49

8.1.2 Interurban dual carriageway motorways ...................................................................... 53

8.2 Degree to which Intersafe geometric design items have been covered in Tunisian guidelines 58

8.2.1 Interurban single carriageway roads items mentioned and rating ........................... 58

8.2.2 interurban dual carriageway motorways: items mentioned and rating ................... 68

8.3 Scoring and prioritising ..................................................................................................... 79

8.3.1 Single carriageway roads ............................................................................................. 79

8.3.2 Dual carriageway roads ...........................................................................................80

5

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABS Anti-Skid Braking System

APRP Annual Public Roads Programme

ASIRT Association for Safe International Road Travel

ATTT Agence Technique du Transport Terrestre – Technical Agency for Land Transport

AU African Union

BAC Blood Alcohol Content

CITA International Motor Vehicle Inspection Committee

CRS Civil Registration Services

EMS Emergency Medical Services

EMT Emergency Medical Technician

EOC Emergency Operation Centre

EU European Union

FBO Faith Based Organization

FY Financial Year

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles

HR Human Resource

IAC Inter-Agency committee

iRAP International Road Assessment Programme

IRF International Road Federation

IRTAD International Road Traffic and Accident Database

ITF International Transport Federation

JAES Joint Africa-EU Strategy

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

LMIC Low- and Middle-Income Countries

MoH Ministry of Health

MTP Medium Term Plans

NCAP New Car Assessment Programme

NDMU National Disaster Management Unit

NGO Non-governmental organizations

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NTSA National Transport and Safety Authority

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PHTLS Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support

PSV Public Service Vehicle

6

PVS Public service vehicles

RES Resolution

RSM Road Safety Management

RSMCR Road Safety Management Capacity Review

RTA Road traffic Accident

SER Self-Explaining Roads

SLA Service Level Agreements

SOE State Operated Enterprises

SPI Safety Performance Indicators

SPR Special Purpose Roads

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

SWOV Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid

SWRW Safe Way Right Way

TIMS Transport Integrated Management System

TTTFP Tripartite Transport and Transit Facilitation Programme

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNRSC United Nations Road Safety Collaboration

USA United States of America

VOSL Value of Statistical Life

WB World Bank

WP Work Package

7

1 Introduction Road and vehicle design standards form the backbone for setting the requirements with respect to road planning, design, maintenance and operation, and for allowing vehicles to operate and participate in the traffic on public roads. Internationally both these domains have evolved, and various standards organisations have adopted international treaties and requirements to provide some form of standardisation and uniformity when it comes to road and vehicle design. These treaties not only serve to improve the quality of roads and vehicles, but more importantly aim to ensure that these provide optimal levels of safety to eliminate/reduce crashes, and to ensure that the effects of crashes on injuries are minimised. In terms of both road and vehicle standards countries on the African continent have been found to be lagging behind most international standards and practices (World Health Organisation, 2015). Generally, vehicles in African countries are old, poorly maintained and regulated. The same applies for the road networks in many African countries and this has added to the growing road safety problem being experienced in many African nations.

1.1 Road design standards Roads, and particularly public roads are designed and built according to set standards. These are generally adopted by authorities responsible for road infrastructure in a country and provide a basis for stipulating quality standards for roads.

Road design standards apply to the design, construction, maintenance and operation of roads and are generally supported by guidelines and standards for aspects related to road signs and markings, signalisation, fencing and verge management and others. In the context of SaferAfrica, and in particular Task 5.5 of Work Package 5, the focus is particularly on the (geometric) design of roads, which is closely linked to road safety, and is intended to ensure that roads are designed to provide adequate levels of safety given the selected designs speeds. This report will not deal with aspects related to pavement design and construction, bridge and tunnel design and construction, materials etc. since these fall outside the scope of this study.

Geometric design of roads relates to the positioning of the road and its elements in a given physical (and financial) space with the aim of optimising the efficiency and safety of traffic that is expected to use the road and with minimal impact to the environment. Geometric design of roads deals with the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road and its cross-section and intends to ensure that a roadway is built in such a way that it does not surprise road users and allows them enough time/space to correct for errors or avoiding dangerous situations.

1.2 Vehicle standards Road vehicle standards intend to set parameters for the physical and mechanical state of road going vehicles during their operational life. These standards regulate the use of vehicles on public roads and put demands on the construction and maintenance of vehicles, as well as on features that are designed to protect occupants and other road users. In most cases, vehicle manufacturers design and build vehicles to comply with vehicle standards adopted by countries or regulated by international treaties, such as those of the United Nations, or those adopted by countries in the EU. These standards not only govern requirements for new vehicles, but more importantly should regulate the fitness of older vehicles.

8

Any comprehensive road safety policy shall contain provisions to ensure that vehicles entering into the fleet fulfil some minimum requirements, and those requirements are kept, in a reasonable way, as long as the vehicle is on the road. Unfortunately, many African countries have limited restrictions on the import of second-hand vehicles.

Vehicles may enter a country as new or used, and it is therefore necessary to set the criteria to accept vehicles in both cases. Regardless of the usage of the vehicle, all countries submit them to registration. This administrative procedure is the right moment to assess vehicles fulfil the minimum standards required in that country.

Once vehicles are on the road, many things may happen: breakdowns, tear and wear, modifications, crashes, maintenance, change of use1, etc. It is necessary to set up the right scheme to ensure that vehicles keep their performances above a minimum level. The two key tools for roadworthiness are unexpected road-side inspection and periodical vehicle inspection.

Since the conception of vehicles has a global approach, it makes sense to take advantage of the already existing international frameworks of vehicle standardisation, and in particular of the UN Agreements of 1958 and 1998 for new vehicles and 1997 for periodic technical inspections. Standards are already defined and available.

There are many advantages to adhere to an already existing vehicle standardisation scheme:

The European Union and many other regions in the world are already applying them: vehicle manufacturers are used to UN Regulations and setting up additional requirements may increase the price of vehicles;

It is not necessary for countries applying the standards to build expensive testing facilities since they can recognise the tests and approvals undertaken in other parts of the world;

Countries may decide the degree of implication they want to have with standards: full mutual recognition or just acceptance

Countries can always keep their sovereignty regarding the entrance of vehicles

Disclaimer

All reasonable efforts have been taken to identify the right regulatory framework, although there is not complete certainty that all legal texts are considered for each country. Additional or different legal documents may change the considerations of this document. Authors cannot be liable in that case.

1 Example of change of use: the same car is submitted to quite different conditions if used privately or as a taxi

9

2 Consolidation of the capacity review and literature results

2.1 Safe Vehicles

At the end of 2015, Tunisia had nearly 1,922,000 vehicles on the road. 60% of vehicles in circulation were private cars and 22% vans. The rest was divided between farm machinery and vehicles, mixed cars, trucks and motorcycles (SaferAfrica Deliverable 5.6 - Capacity Review Tunisia).

According to the statistics from the ATTT (Agence Technique des Transports Terrestres – Technical Agency for Land Transport), the motor vehicles fleet in Tunisia is growing annually at a rate of approximately 70 to 80,000 vehicles. The light vehicle (LV) segment accounts for the largest share of the automobile market in Tunisia, with approximately 96% of total sales. (SaferAfrica Deliverable 5.6 - Capacity Review Tunisia).

Light vehicles (LVs) driving in Tunisia come from the official and parallel markets. The parallel market accounts for 40% of car sales and the increase has been steady. This explains partly the aging fleet. The number of vehicles over 15 years old is estimated at approximately 30 to 40% of the entire fleet in circulation.

The Capacity Review of Tunisia identifies the ATTT as the governmental body responsible for setting vehicle standards and for undertaking vehicle inspections. It is a non-administrative public establishment considered as a public enterprise. (Governed by law No. 98-108 of 28 December 1998, the ATTT took over from the Agency of Vehicle Roadworthiness Visits created in 1995 under law No. 95-61 of 3 July 1995).

Vehicle roadworthiness tests are mandatory. In 2016, the regulation defining frequency of testing changed. According to the new rule, vehicles undergo their first roadworthiness tests starting in the fourth year after being put into circulation. After the fourth year, roadworthiness tests are performed every two years and then annually starting from the tenth year. Moreover, the new law of 2016 has made the certification issued after technical inspection mandatory in order to be able to ensure the vehicle. The change of law was dictated by the fact that an estimated 300,000 vehicles were in circulation despite the fact that they had not passed the mandated technical inspection.

10

2.2 Road design practices For road safety it is of paramount importance that the road network is provided with the necessary safety features to ensure the safety of its users and the safety between users. To facilitate that, road networks must be systematically and logically classified (functional), road designs must comply not only with design standards but also with safety standards, road users must comply with restrictions set to ensure safe operation and engineers must ensure that the roads are maintained at a level that these standards are not compromised. From a safe systems perspective, the following aspects require specific attention:

Comprehensive safety standards and rules and performance targets for the planning, design, operation and use of roads;

Aligning speed limits with safe systems design principles;

Ensuring that compliance regimes are in place and that users adhere to the safety rules and standards;

Safety standards and rules considering the specific needs of high-risk road user groups.

A safe systems approach to road design ensures roads which are designed and constructed to reduce the risk of crashes (i.e. the design of the road will not be directly attributable to a crash) and where crashes do occur, the severity of the crash will be minimised. Roads typically have features such as adequate clear zones, no roadside hazards; breakaway constructions, safe barriers, no conflicts between opposing traffic, slow and fast traffic physically separated (in time and/or space), etc..

In Tunisia, the strategic planning mission for transport and road infrastructures is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. More precisely, the Ministry is in charge of establishing, maintaining and developing a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated transport system that contributes to promoting sustainable economic and social development and ensures that transport needs are met for people under the best possible conditions, notably in terms of safety, security, cost, quality and environmental protection.

On the regional level, the Ministry of Transport is represented in all the governorates through the regional directorates that oversee compliance with the national road mobility targets. The governorate draws up the Governorate’s Development Scheme in which it lays down planning for the road network and the organization of regional infrastructures. This plan must be approved by the regional council.

On the municipal level, the municipalities are asked to design Traffic Plans consistent with the regional and national plans and in harmony with the delegation’s targets. These traffic plans translate the municipal mobility policy and the measures for intervention by the municipalities for infrastructures. The Urban Mobility Plans and Traffic Plans must be approved by the municipal council (SaferAfrica Deliverable 5.6 - Capacity Review Tunisia).

2.2.1 Current road network

The current road network of Tunisia comprises 19 750 km of roads, of which 12 750 km is paved and 360 km is classified as motorways (Joël Yerpez & Nesrine Bouhamed, 2018).

The network is managed by the Ministry of Equipment, Housing and Spatial Planning. National roads, approximately 3,940 km long, cover long axes and run through several Tunisian governorates and characterised by high traffic volumes. Secondary roads, covering regional axes with less traffic, are called "regional roads". They represent approximately 5,120 km. Local roads form the local road network of each governorate and cover about 2,450 km. Another 1,240 km of unclassified roads and

11

more than 13,000 km of agricultural roads / rural roads unpaved. (SaferAfrica Deliverable 5.6 - Capacity Review Tunisia).

The motorway network is under development. The largest motorway axis connects Bizerte, Tunis, Sousse and Sfax along the coast along highways 1 and 4. Highways serve dynamic economic areas. The hinterland does not benefit from such a high-performance infrastructure. In July 2014, the World Bank granted a $ 230 million loan to rehabilitate highways. The project aims to open up the most remote and precarious areas in order to promote trade, reduce unemployment and limit economic disparities between regions.

At the national level, the Ministry of Equipment and Housing (MEH) is in charge of the maintenance of the road network through the Directorate of Operations and Road Maintenance (DEER) and the Directorate of Equipment (DM). DEER draws up the general framework for maintenance and keeps the collection of road data and traffic statistics up to date.

The Ministry is also represented throughout the Tunisian territory by its Regional Directorates to plan and carry out the maintenance of national and regional highways in collaboration with the governorate. The development of extra-communal and rural tracks is also the responsibility of the Ministry, which distributes the maintenance budget among the Regional Directorates, ensures the analytical follow-up and the control of the works.

Municipalities are responsible for the work and maintenance of local roads and sidewalks. A collaboration may be necessary between the urban communes and the Ministry if the maintenance concerns a road with common interests. Lack of financial resources and lack of coordination can cause road repair quality problems. The municipality is further responsible for informing citizens of road works and for ensuring preventive road safety measures are taken.

Overall, the Tunisian road network is relatively developed, with big cities being connected by a fairly dense network. The roads are classified according to their category and their functionality. High-speed traffic is supported on “motorways”, although this network is still relatively limited and does not yet connect all metropolitan areas. The major links are provided by national roads which represent nearly 30% of the network of classified roads. Secondary roads cover regional axes with less traffic, and are classified as regional roads. Despite the relative development of the network, road conditions remain below expectation according to road safety institutions and users/citizens.

2.2.2 Road safety design and operational checks

On the basis of the information available at the moment of drafting this report, Tunisia appears to lack a local manual or guidelines2. The design and construction of new roads, and to an extent the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing roads, is carried out using the French standards and guidelines.

There seems to be no established procedure or methodology that outlines the steps to be followed for road design and validation. Road safety is addressed in some feasibility studies, but not structurally in the design phases (i.e. designs are checked but not against specific road safety design criteria). Recently, the obligation to perform a Road Safety Audit has been introduced for new projects. Despite this positive development, audits are still far from being a standard practice. They are still incidentally

2 Despite several attempts, it has not been possible to obtain feedback from the tunisian authorities on this.

12

carried out (mainly as part of donor funded projects). Road safety inspections are also not routine, nor structurally carried out.

Although specific road safety guidelines have been prepared for African countries by the African Development Bank (African Development Bank, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c), these do not seem to have been adopted in Tunisia.

Finally, in addition to the limited financial resources, the human resources are not always available to deal with the problems, nor do they always have the required knowledge, training and experience.

2.2.3 Speed limits in Tunisia

No instructions or procedure for determining speed limits was found during the examination of the available documents, both in urban and interurban areas. Nevertheless, the geometric design guidelines provide speeds which serve as a basis for the category choice. For motorways, the speed is limited to 130 Km/h and 110 Km/h, respectively, for the L1 and L2 categories. Dual carriageway roads are limited to 110 Km/h or 90 Km/h. The speed limit on single carriageway roads is 80 Km/h or 60 Km/h.

An internet check of the speed limit signs installed along the roads shows that the speed on highways is limited to 110 Km/h (reduced to 90 Km/h in rainy weather). On the rest of the interurban networks the speed is limited to 90 Km/h, except at intersections and along sections that have some difficult geometric features. In urban areas, the speed is limited to 50 Km/h. But existing roads are not regularly appraised to determine whether the posted speed limits are still valid.

There are no indications that the safe systems approach is being applied in terms of managing safe speeds, not from an engineering nor from an enforcement perspective. The safe system approach embodies safe speed which necessitates the establishment of speed limits according to the features of the road and roadside, as well as speed enforcement and education measures. This does not seem to be the case for Tunisia.

13

3 Assessment of vehicle and road design standards and legislation

3.1 Vehicle standards The regulatory framework of Tunisia is available in the document “Code de la Route et ses textes d’application, 2017”3 – Road Act and its complementary regulations, 2017. It contains relevant texts setting up requirements both for new and in-use vehicles, in a similar approach to some EU countries.

The current Road Act4 was approved in 1999 replacing the version released in 1978. The 1999 Road Act has been updated since, however it keeps the same approach as the version which was adopted.

The most relevant items are listed below:

Classification of vehicles: it is very similar to the one used in the European Union and the UN conventions. This facilitates the introduction of international standards;

The law (Art 61) indicates that precise rules will be defined in the appropriate decrees. Art 67 has the same approach for agricultural tractors and machinery, and Art 71 for motorcycles. Therefore, all road vehicles are considered;

Art 62 defines the homologation as an activity of the Ministry of Transport, to be developed as well by ministerial orders. It also defines how to handle important modifications of vehicles;

Art 64 regulates the registration of vehicles, again to be detailed in a ministerial order, and Art 65 establishes the obligation for vehicle owners to keep them roadworthy and to submit

them to periodical inspections.

Altogether, the Road Act can be considered as appropriately covering all the relevant items related to vehicles, including both road safety and environmental protection.

Additional legal documents in Tunisia related to vehicles are the following ones:

Decree 2004-2236, of September 21st, 2004. This Decree sets the categories two-, three-wheelers and quadricycles defining those submitted to approval and registration. It applies to mopeds, motorcycles, three-wheelers and quadricycles. Decree 20014/2236 does not precisely define the standards to apply.

Decree 2000-147, of January 24th, 2000. This document establishes the technical rules for the equipment and furnishing of vehicles. The content of the Decree is split into several relevant items for cars, vans, trucks, buses, trailers, agricultural vehicles, road machinery, mopeds, motorcycles, tricycles and quadricycles:

Dimensions, weights and tyres. Approved tyres according to recognised standards (however there is no precise list). Engine and its systems, including requirements for gaseous emissions and noise. There is

potential to give more details about this matter. Lighting and light-signalling systems Fuel tanks and pipes. Conditions for batteries.

3 https://www.droit-afrique.com/uploads/Tunisie-Code-2017-route.pdf

4 Law – Loi 99-71, of July 26th, 1999

14

Steering wheel, controls, visibility, speed control and tachographs. Brakes. Chassis identification Safety belts and anchorages, but not including a full requirement of 3-point safety belts for

all seats Child seats are not mandatory Rear and side underrun protection prescribed, but performances not defined

Altogether, the structure of the Decree 2000-147 identifies most of the essential items of the vehicle’s safety and environmental performance. However, it does not identify the precise standards to follow.

Decree 2000-148, of January 24th, 2000 sets the periodicity and procedures for vehicle inspection. It also obliges vehicle owners to keep their vehicle roadworthy regardless of the inspections and allows additional unexpected controls by the police. The annex contains a list of the checks to undertake and the identification and classification of defects.

Decree 2000-155, of January 24th, 2000 defines the equipment to control vehicles, but only in the cases where equipment is used to establish infringements. It does not contain requirements for calibration, metrological control or model approval.

Additional interesting legal documents include:

Decree 2002-2016, of September 4th, 2002, for LPG powered vehicles. Decree 2002-2017, of September 4th, 2002, for NGC powered vehicles. Ministerial Order of January 25th, 2000 for the registration of vehicles, including the need of

the Certificate of Conformity and vehicle approval. Ministerial Order of January 25th, 200o for the approval of vehicles defining:

o Application to all road vehicles o Type approval o Individual approval o The Ministry of Transport as responsible for approval o The need for tests performed by recognised technical centres

Altogether, the Tunisian framework for vehicles is well structured and one of the most complete in Africa. The possibilities for completion are found in the following areas:

A precise definition of the standards to follow Definition of responsibilities and establishment of the infringement regime Requirements for inspectors Requirements for equipment Requirements to guarantee the quality

Tunisia has adhered to the 1958 UNECE Agreement for the approval of vehicles on January 1st, 20085 with the country code E58. The Government has designated the ATTT as the approving authority for several UNECE regulations6. The most remarkable ones are:

UNECE Regulation 13: H: brakes

5 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2019/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP.29-343-Rev.27.pdf 6 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2019/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP.29-343-Rev.27-Add.1.pdf

15

UNECE Regulation 101: emissions of CO2, fuel consumption and electric consumption UNECE Regulation 105: transport of dangerous goods (vehicle design) UNECE Regulation 107: general requirements for buses and coaches (categories M2 and M3) UNECE Regulation 115: vehicles using LPG and CNG as fuel

ATTT has also been designated as technical service in charge of performing the test on the vehicles. The reports of those tests are used by authorities to grant the homologation. Despite having appointed a technical service, Tunisia hasn’t defined for which specific regulations ATTT is appointed as technical service.

3.1.1 Comparison with international vehicle standards and recommendations to improve conformity and uniformity

The natural benchmark at international level for the comparison of the standardisation schemes for vehicles is the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Although the name refers to Europe, any UN country may participate, and many non-European countries already do.

The WP.29, belonging to UNECE, manages three different agreements:

Agreement of 19587: Agreement concerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations Regulations.

Agreement of 19988: Global technical regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles.

Agreements of 19979: Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions for Periodical Technical Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and the Reciprocal Recognition of Such Inspections.

The first two agreements, 1958 and 1998, define the standards for new vehicles. The analysis of the differences between them is beyond the scope of this document, however both set a scheme for vehicle approval and mutual recognition of the approvals between countries. As mentioned above, Tunisia has adhered 1958 UNECE Agreement for the approval of vehicles on January 1st, 200810 with the country code E58.

The third agreement, the one of 1997, defines the standards to apply to vehicles in use to ensure their roadworthiness both from the safety and the emissions point of view. It also contains provisions for the mutual recognition that may be used in Africa, in particular in those regions with significant volumes of international traffic, like the corridors or the roads from land-locked countries to harbours.

UNECE agreements pose a readily available off-the-shelf solution for vehicle standardisation. Even the European Union’s scheme for vehicle approval also refers to the UNECE agreements. Here is a list of the main advantages of the system:

7 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2017/E-ECE-TRANS-505-Rev.3e.pdf 8 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob/tran132.pdf 9 https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp291997.html 10 https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2019/wp29/ECE-TRANS-WP.29-343-Rev.27.pdf

16

Vast readily available compendium of vehicle standards, covering all aspects of vehicles: 147 regulations according to the agreement of 1958, 20 Global Technical Regulations (GTR) according to the agreement of 1998 and 4 rules according to the agreement of 1997.

A group of experts working in the field since the late 1950s. Unique worldwide forum of vehicle regulations in which any UN country can be influential by

voting. Agreements can be formally ratified, with all the implications of international law, or just

recognised at the country level. Agreements can be adapted. Countries keep their sovereignty under all circumstances. Vehicle manufacturers already know how to produce according to those standards. Using non-common standards requires tailored designs, and therefore, vehicles become

more expensive. Countries do not need to develop testing facilities; they can use the tests already done in other

parts of the world.

In the case of Tunisia, there is already a well-defined framework: the Road Act. The country may decide to develop all the precise technical details by itself, to wait for regional development, or to take off the shelf all the existing international material.

3.2 Geometric design standards for roads The degree to which guidelines are applied varies considerably between road authorities and between different projects. The application of guidelines is related to the available space (to design and build the road) and the distribution of traffic and environmental functions of a road: application can be hindered by lack of space, but also because there is disparity between the designated function of a road and its actual use. Sometimes there may be legitimate grounds to deviate from the guidelines. Furthermore, a traffic engineering design is subject to several preconditions: spatial integration, political choices and interests of those directly involved. Furthermore, in the design process choices must be made that will influence the final result.

It is important to take into account the road safety implications when making design choices. Guidelines worldwide provide limited insight into the relationship between the different design elements and road safety. For example, in the Netherlands, only around 30% of the design elements mention a road safety effect (G. Schermers, Dijkstra, Mesken, & Baan, 2013). It is therefore extremely difficult for the designer (who is rarely a safety specialist) to determine the quantitative road safety effect if it is necessary to deviate from recommendations in the guidelines during the design process. In practice, a qualitative assessment by an expert is therefore important. Such expert judgement may provide more clarity but does not provide conclusive evidence.

Two dimensions were considered in the assessment of road safety in road design guidelines in Tunisia:

The perceived importance of the design elements themselves The extent to which the design elements were included in current guidelines

The INTERSAFE study – Technical Guide on Road Safety for Interurban Roads (ERSF, 1996) was used to provide the basis for the assessment. In this study various geometric design elements were identified and could be used to define 86 separate design features which could be categorised into the primary design elements, namely:

basic assumptions (25 -28 items); alignment (19 -21 items); cross-section (21 -25 items); intersections/interchanges (21 -28 items).

17

The selected criteria (listed in detail in Appendix A for single and dual carriageway roads separately) were reviewed by engineers from the SaferAfrica team and were slightly modified to include additional elements, especially relevant to dual carriageway roads. This increased the total number of design features or items to 89 on single carriageway roads and to 105 on dual carriageway roads.

Seeing that most countries do not have specific geometric design guidelines for urban roads, the assessment focussed on guidelines for rural roads and highways (dual carriageway). Because of some fundamental design differences in these road types, the number of items per primary element also differed.

3.2.1 Perceived importance of design elements

The first step of the assessment was to establish whether local road designers and specialists considered the various design items and elements important from a road safety perspective and necessary to include in the guidelines.

To start with, road safety experts carried out a qualitative assessment of these design items on three aspects: 1) the presumed road safety effect, 2) the degree in which the relation with safety has been validated, and 3) possibilities to further research the specific element where the relationship is not fully developed (research-ability). Then the items were given a quantitative assessment based on a weighting and scoring procedure. A design was given a higher score – and higher research priority – where the amount of available knowledge was smaller, and the road safety effect was greater.

In the following section, the relevance and importance of the individual design items are summarised into the four main design elements (Supporting criteria; alignment; cross-section and intersections).

3.2.1.1 Rural single carriageway roads

When rating the safety effect of the various design elements, the assessor found that more than half of the design items were relevant for road safety in the Tunisian situation, with more than 51% across all elements scoring as being highly relevant. About 35% were deemed moderately relevant and about 13% of design items were found to be of little relevance (Table 1). A detailed reflection showing all the individual elements for rural single carriageway roads is included in Appendix B.

Primary design element

Relevance for safety in guidelines/perceived effect on safety

Small Average High Total

Supporting criteria

3 5 17 25

Alignment 3 6 12 21

Cross-section 6 9 6 21

Intersections 0 11 11 22

Total 12 31 46 89

Percentage 13.48% 34.83% 51.69% 100%

Table 1: Relevance of Intersafe design elements for road safety in Tunisian rural single carriageway road design guidelines

18

The next aspect determined to what extent the assessor found the design item to be acknowledged and described in (international) literature. This aspect assumes that if international literature describes the relationship qualitatively (known effect) that the relationship is well understood and important, whereas if it is only descriptive, the relationship with safety is less important and less understood. This assessment revealed that there were more than 50% of items that, according to the assessor, were described in a quantitative sense in the international guidelines, whereas 10 items (11%) were generally descriptive (Table 2).


Relevance as described in international guideline/literature

Purely descriptive

Qualitative Quantitative Total

Supporting criteria

0 9 16 25

Alignment 4 7 10 21



Total 10 32 47 89

Percentage 11.24% 35.95% 52.81% 100%

Table 2: Perceived relevance of elements as described in international literature/guidelines for the Tunisian situation – single carriageway roads

This result shows some compatibility with an earlier study by SWOV in which selected European road authorities at national level and a larger selection of Dutch road authorities (at all levels) were asked to rate the same criteria. European road authorities believe 21% of the relationships are descriptive in nature, 38% qualitatively described and only 41% quantitatively described in current international guidelines. This small difference between the SaferAfrica and SWOV results may be ascribed to different interpretations of some items of the guidelines.

19


Relevance as described in international guideline/literature

Purely descriptive


Supporting criteria

2 6 17 25

Alignment 3 11 5 19



Total 18 32 35 85

Percentage 21% 38% 41% 100%

Table 3: Perceived relevance as described in international literature/guidelines according to European and Dutch experts (G. Schermers et al., 2013)

When assessing the degree of difficulty in researching the relationship between road safety and the various design aspects from a Tunisian perspective, the assessor found that the difficulty to research the majority of items (83%) is moderate. Only 8% were difficult to research and 9% easy to research.


To what degree of difficulty is the design aspect researchable

Not/Highly difficult Moderately Easy/not difficult Total

Supporting criteria

4 17 4 25

Alignment 1 16 4 21



Total 7 74 8 89

Percentage 7.86% 83.15% 8.99% 100%

Table 4: The degree to which the relationship between geometric design elements for single carriageway rural roads and safety can be researched from a Tunisian perspective

20

The Tunisian assessment of the “researchability” of the various aspects is different to the results of an earlier study in the Netherlands and Europe (Table 5). The aspects covered under basic criteria were generally deemed more difficult to research in the European assessment, whereas they were deemed moderately researchable in the Tunisian assessment.



Not/Highly difficult

Moderately Not/Highly difficult Total

Supporting criteria

0 6 19 25

Alignment 2 15 2 19



Total 5 44 35 84

Percentage 6% 52% 42% 100%

Table 5: The degree to which the relationship between design items and safety can be researched from a European perspective (G. Schermers et al., 2013)

3.2.1.2 Rural dual carriageway roads

The same assessment was carried out for rural dual carriageway roads as described in the current Tunisian geometric design guidelines. The assessor found that more than the half (56%) of the primary design elements covered by the Intersafe approach were highly relevant and should be included in geometric design guidelines for rural roads, also in Tunisia (Table 6).


Relevance for safety in guidelines/effect on safety


Supporting criteria 7 5 16 28

Alignment 2 8 11 21



Total 14 29 55 98

Percentage 14.29% 29.59% 56.12% 100%

Table 6: Relevance of Intersafe design elements for road safety described in Tunisian geometric design guidelines for rural dual carriageway roads

21

The perceived effect for safety of the primary design elements (and the relevance for guidelines) were rated higher for the Tunisian situation than in the earlier study reported in the Netherlands (G. Schermers et al., 2013). In the European situation these elements were rated (Table 7) as having an average effect on safety, but still relevant. The difference in results could be attributed to the fact that in Europe, generally speaking, the relationship between these items and safety is more common practice and entrenched in the thinking, whereas in Africa this pattern is still emerging and therefore the effect and importance for guidelines are rated more highly than in Europe.


Relevance for safety in guidelines/effect on safety



Alignment 5 6 8 19



Total 19 41 20 80

Percentage 24% 51% 25% 100%

Table 7: Relevance of Intersafe design elements for road safety described in European design guidelines for rural dual carriageway roads

The relationships between the primary design elements and road safety were rated as being quantitatively described in (inter)national literature for more than 55%, while almost 20% were rated as being descriptive, which suggests that some effects cannot be easily incorporated into current Tunisian geometric design guidelines for rural dual carriageway roads (Table 8).


Relevance and nature of description in international guideline/literature

Purely descriptive



Alignment 2 5 14 21



Total 19 25 54 98

Percentage 19.39% 25.51% 55.10% 100%

22

Table 8: Perceived relevance of elements as described in international literature/guidelines for the Tunisian situation – dual carriageway roads

According to the Tunisian assessor, most items covered by the primary design elements for rural dual carriageway roads are moderately difficult to research (Table 9 ) and it is therefore not easy to implement the relationships in the guidelines. This result is different to that of the European study (G. Schermers et al., 2013) where the proportion of the items that were deemed highly difficult to research and quantify was higher (50%).



Not/Highly difficult

Moderately Easy/not difficult

Total


Alignment 3 18 0 21



Total 8 84 6 98

Percentage 8.16% 85.71% 6.12% 100%

Table 9: The degree to which the relationship between geometric design elements for rural dual carriageway rural roads and safety can be researched from a Tunisian perspective

3.2.2 Importance of design factors in Tunisian guidelines

The second part of the assessment related to the extent to which the selected (Intersafe) geometric design aspects were dealt with in Tunisian guidelines and whether their relationship with road safety was addressed.

As mentioned earlier, Tunisia uses French road design standards and guidelines so there were studied to select and assess design characteristics that are important for road safety. The following guidelines were assessed:

- ICTAAL (Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d’Aménagement des Autoroutes de Liaison) 2000

- ARP - Note d’information SETRA 2008, vitesse V85 - ICTAVRU (Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d’Aménagement des Voies Rapides

Urbaines) - Guide conception des accès des VRU type A CERTU

All these documents are drawn up by French Ministry of Equipment and Transport.

3.2.2.1 Single carriageway roads

The assessment of the Tunisian geometric design standards reveals that 71.9% of the items covered by the four primary design elements are covered in the Tunisian guidelines, whilst more than 71% of

23

these items (or 51% of the total design elements) do not mention any safety effects. Where the safety effect is mentioned it is purely descriptive and deviations from the recommended norms are almost not addressed (See Appendix B).

A similar evaluation in the Netherlands revealed that 25% of items were not described in the guidelines although 87% of those that were described did not mention any safety effects (G. Schermers et al., 2013).

This similarity is somewhat expected, given the Tunisian guidelines are finally the French guidelines. These thus represent a European approach to road safety.


Mentioned in Tunisian guidelines Not mentioned

in Tunisian guidelines

Total Without road safety effect

With road safety effect


Alignment 9 8 4 21



Total 46 18 25 89

Percentage 51.68% 20.22% 28.09% 100%

Table 10: Summary of Intersafe geometric design items covered in the Tunisian guidelines for single carriageway roads

3.2.2.2 Dual carriageway roads

The same assessment as for single carriageway roads was also carried out for the design guidelines relevant for dual carriageway roads. This revealed a similar result.

It is also similar to a study of geometric design guidelines from the Netherlands, which revealed that in the Netherlands, 88% of the items covered in the Intersafe methodology had been described in Dutch guidelines for national motorways (Rijkswaterstaat, 2007; G. Schermers et al., 2013)

24


Mentioned in Tunisian guidelines Not mentioned

in Tunisian guidelines

Total Without road safety effect

With road safety effect


Alignment 20 0 1 21



Total 70 3 25 98

Percentage 71.43% 3.06% 25.51% 100%

Table 11: Summary of Intersafe geometric design items covered in the Tunisian guidelines for dual carriageway roads

25

4 Prioritising the challenges for safe vehicle and road design standards in Tunisia

4.1 Vehicle design standards Tunisia has a well-defined Road Act and an appropriately defined institutional structure which empowers the public agency ATTT to take care of the management and enforcement of criteria for vehicles during their lifetime.

The legal framework is relatively complete, and even includes the requirements for transformations and vehicles using gas, both LPG and CNG.

The main drivers to improve the system correspond to the three levels considered by the SaferAfrica project: Institutional, organisational and operational. Any detailed conclusion requires to undertake the diagnosis approach described later on in this document.

4.1.1 Institutional level

Evidence shows that the institutional level is well defined in Tunisia thanks to the activities of the ATTT. ATTT works in the field of new vehicles, used vehicles entering into the country, in-use vehicles and transformations.

Furthermore, all motorised road vehicles and their trailers are within the scope of its activities.

4.1.2 Organisational level

Tunisia and ATTT have a long tradition of managing and enforcing fleet requirements. That makes them a reference and benchmark for other countries. Further research is required to identify the precise scope of the requirements for vehicles entering the country and periodic inspection criteria.

4.1.3 Operational level

The extensive experience of Tunisia in vehicles’ compliance puts the country in a privileged position compared to other countries in Africa. The identification of improvements at the operational level requires a more in-depth investigation, as outlined later on in section 6 of this document.

4.2 Road design standards

In Chapter 3, the Tunisian road design practices were assessed using the design items adopted in the Intersafe project (ERSF, 1996) which, although somewhat dated, still provides a very comprehensive reference framework. The assessment was conducted on two levels which intend to reveal the status quo of road design practices in Tunisia, and more specifically to what extent road safety is integrated into that philosophy. In the first place, the assessment focussed on the perceived importance and relevance of the various design aspects covered by Intersafe for the Tunisian situation, and in the second, on the extent to which these items were described in current geometric design guidelines. The first level assessment was done using effect, relevance and researchability as criteria, whereas the second level used inclusion in the guidelines and the relationship with safety as parameters for describing the situation.

In this chapter, the result of the assessment is combined by applying a scoring for each item and then calculating a total per assessment by multiplying the various dimension scores (see Appendix A and B). This first dimension (perceived relevance for guidelines) scored a maximum of 27 points, whereas the second dimension (degree of inclusion in Tunisian guidelines) scored a maximum of 12. A total score based on a weighted average of the two dimensions produced a total score per design item and a total for each of the four primary design elements (supporting criteria; alignment; cross-section and intersections/interchanges). For this project it was decided to select the three highest scoring elements in each one of the primary design element categories. It is also possible to produce a

26

prioritisation based on all items irrespective of the primary category they fall in. However, the results in Chapter 3 made clear that many Intersafe items are deemed important for the Tunisian situation whilst many of these are not included in the guidelines, and if they are, the relationship with road safety is not adequately addressed. The adopted scoring and prioritisation process were designed to ensure that exactly those design items/elements that are perceived relevant, have not been included or are badly described, score high on the priority lists.

4.2.1 Prioritising road design elements for guidelines for single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia.

Table 12 shows the top three scoring items per primary design element, which, according to the assessment, require inclusion, amendment or updating in current Tunisian design guidelines. In the section dealing with the supporting or basic criteria of the design guidelines there is a high perceived need to better describe the aspects dealing with the relationship between safety and design vehicle characteristics and friction coefficient (longitudinal and side) (Table 12).

In terms of alignment, stop areas for brake checking were rated as having the highest priority to be revised in current guidelines. For cross-sectional elements, the aspect dealing with surfacing was deemed the single most important for reviewing in current guidelines. In the final section, dealing with design elements for intersections, traffic safety records and local speed limits were deemed as being the most important items that needed revisions in current guidelines for single carriageway roads.

Primary design

Element Design item Weighted score Ranking

Supporting criteria Design vehicle characteristics 100,00 1

Longitudinal friction coefficient 83.33 2

Side friction coefficient 83.33 2

Deceleration 83.33 2

Safety distances 83.33 2

Overhead and lateral clearances 75,00 3

Alignment Stop areas for brake checking 83.33 1

Warrants and spacing 72.22 2

Type and length 72.22 2

Radii not recommended 58.33 3

Super elevation 58.33 3

Cross-section Surfacing 83.33 1

Crossfall 72.22 2

Tunnels 64.81 3

Intersections Traffic safety records for intersection types

83.33 1

Local speed limits 83.33 1

Number of arms 72.22 2

27

Primary design Element

Design item Weighted score Ranking

Bicycle facilities 72.22 2

Traffic signals 72.22 2

Traffic conflict countermeasures for vulnerable road users

64.81 3

Shape and layout (refer to whether it is a traditional t or X or some deviation)

64.81 3

Table 12: Priority road design aspects requiring attention in Tunisian guidelines for single carriageway roads

4.2.2 Prioritising road design elements for guidelines for dual carriageway rural roads in Tunisia.

Following the same procedure as with single carriageway roads, the three design items with the highest overall score in each primary design element category were selected as those needing urgent revision in current Tunisian geometric design guidelines. In this case, the highest scoring items are listed below.

Primary design Element Design item Weighted score Ranking

Supporting criteria Design vehicle characteristics 100,00 1

Longitudinal friction coefficient 83.33 2

Side friction coefficient 83.33 2

Crossing sight distance 83.33 2

Safety distances 83.33 2

Overtaking sight distance 66.67 3

Abort overtaking sight distance 66.67 3

Alignment Radii not recommended 58.33 1

Super elevation 58.33 1

Minimum radius 58.33 1

Curve following a straight section 58.33 1

Compatibility of two successive curves 58.33 1

Convex curves 58.33 1

Warrants and spacing 58.33 1

Internal defects of a bend 55.56 2

Straight sections and large radius curves 47.22 3

Transition curves 47.22 3

Design consistency 47.22 3

Gradient 47.22 3

28

Primary design Element Design item Weighted score Ranking

Auxiliary (climbing or passing) lane suppression: type and length of drop

47.22 3

Improvement of existing roads 47.22 3

Type and length 47.22 3

Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments

47.22 3

Cross-section Surfacing 83.33 1

Road markings 83.33 1

Tunnels 72.22 2

Lane width vs. design speed 64.81 3

Intersections Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway through the interchange area

83.33 1

Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area

83.33 1

Turning radii for design vehicle 83.33 1

Length of access control along the crossroad beyond the interchange, to ensure its integrity

72.22 2

Land development and access management measures are in place for the interchange area (Y or N)

72.22 2

Traffic control 72.22 2

Requirements for consistency in exit pattern with other nearby interchanges

64.81 3

Over the freeway 64.81 3

Table 13: Priority road design aspects requiring attention in Tunisian guidelines for dual carriageway roads

29

5 Development of an overall prioritisation strategy and formulation of the most promising improvement opportunities for vehicle and road design standards in Tunisia

5.1 Vehicle design standards The enabling project plan for Tunisia includes mainly two activities: diagnosis and support project. At this point, it is only possible to address the diagnosis section in detail. However, it is very much necessary to take into account the advanced stage of vehicle compliance and fleet enforcement management.

5.1.1 Diagnosis

The Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) of the World Bank (WB) has started a series of diagnosis projects in some sub-Saharan countries in order to precisely assess the needs regarding the regulatory framework of the process. Projects are called Assessment of Vehicle Inspection Schemes (AVIS), and focus on three main aspects:

Capacity building Entering vehicles, depending on if they are new or used Already existing vehicles

The first report was done on Togo11 and is the result of a detailed work plan that can be reapplied in all other countries.

The precise definition of the project is as follows12:

The Objectives of the AVIS study is to review current practices in vehicle inspection regimes in defined countries, to make context-specific recommendations for each of them. The aim is to improve the way these inspection programs contribute to the countries' overall ability to manage the motorisation process and improve road safety outcomes and other public policy objectives. It also recommends an overall program of capacity building toward implementing the recommendations.

The scope of the assessment shall include two regimes for the country, one covering the inspection of in-use vehicles, and the other covering certification of vehicles entering the registered vehicle fleet for the first time, whether through manufacture or import and a program of capacity building.

Scope A: In-use vehicle inspections

A. The consultant shall: B. Document current practice with respect to in-use vehicle inspections in the country, both as

related to road safety and vehicle emissions C. Identify key vehicle safety practices / aspects that should be incorporated into periodic

technical inspections, where they are not already practiced D. Propose and recommend a plausible structure for carrying out in-use vehicle inspections

going forward, taking into account the need to incorporate not only road safety, but also

11 https://citainsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TogoReportFinalEN.Final_.pdf 12 Extract of Term of Reference for GRSF’s AVIS projects

30

pollutant emissions, in the control tests. The recommended structure should take the following into account:

a. Assume that whatever pollution control regime will be adopted, it would likely involve control of PM and non-methane hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline and diesel vehicles in the short run, and would need to include NOx control in the medium to long run, in accordance with the requirements set for new and used vehicles being registered in the country.

b. The current and anticipated future size and age of the vehicle fleet should be taken into account both for the country as a whole and the major metropolitan areas within the country

c. Dimensions and business-case of the inspection operations should be considered and factored into the recommendations, taking into account needed investments, institutional development and strengthening at all levels (national, regional, local), facilities development, data management, communication and awareness campaigns, on-road and administrative enforcement, fraud control and training

Scope B: Certification of vehicles entering the registered vehicle fleet for the first time

Many countries are dependent primarily on vehicle imports to grow their vehicle fleets. Scope B is intended to evaluate and make recommendations on the process by which entering vehicles (that is, vehicles being imported, including locally assembled vehicles based on imported kits) are considered eligible for first-time registration. The consultant shall:

A. Document and describe current practice with respect to import vehicle inspection, as related to structural integrity / crash-worthiness of the vehicle, crash avoidance and mitigation features of the vehicles, and emissions control and performance. Such documentation would include identification and description of the relevant international agreements, if any, to which the country formally adheres or voluntarily submits to.

B. Identify key weaknesses in the current import certification process, with reference to international best practice

C. Propose and recommend one or more plausible scenarios for modifying the vehicle import certification process in line with public policy aims of improving both crash avoidance and crashworthiness characteristics of the vehicle fleet over time, as well as emissions characteristics. The considered scenarios should include considerations of needed investments, institutional capacity to administer the system, institutional strengthening at all levels (national, regional, local, private), facilities development, data management, communication and awareness, fraud control and training.

Scope C: Capacity building

The consultant shall: A. Propose needed national, regional and local training for administrative and technical

nationals via an action plan. This proposal shall consider all different department and levels within the authorities and relevant stakeholders.

The proposed training should be relevant to the anticipate roles of the different stakeholders, and shall include the governmental departments taking care of new and in-use vehicle standards, registration of vehicles, management of vehicle workshops, police, customs and transports.

Regarding the private side, the stakeholders to be considered are individual vehicle owners, drivers, big fleet managers, repair workshops, vehicle importers and manufacturers, parts importers and manufacturers, and inspection services, as relevant.

B. Propose a layout for a standard vehicle inspection station, in terms of equipment, facilities, staffing, as input for the Government

31

C. Propose and conduct study tours in partner countries (industrialized and emerging/developing countries), with the aim of sharing implementation approaches from countries with best practices.

The assignment will be conducted by a team of two individual consultants.

Deliverables

The expected deliverables from the team of individual consultants are as follows: 1. An inception report prepared before the first field visit that will list the main information

collected from the desk review, and identify the issues to clarify during the field visit as listed under the Scope of Work section of the present project description. This note will notably include a review of the current status of the vehicle legal framework of the country, including the requirements for new vehicles, in-use vehicles and used imported vehicles. That shall comprise as well a description of the arrangements that the country authorities have set up to manage the legal framework related to road vehicles. Regulations will be analysed from the perspective of individual use and commercial use whenever the distinction is relevant.

2. A field visit report that will include the clarifications on the issues listed in the inception report, relevant information collected during the field visit, program and contact details for stakeholders met.

3. A proposal of specific and realistic implementable frameworks for road vehicle control, with respect to both in-use vehicles, and vehicles newly entering the fleet for first time registration, taking into account already existing international approaches like the 1997 Vienna Agreement of the UN ECE adapted to the country, including the concepts listed in “Objectives and Scope of the Work” of these Terms of Reference. This could be phased approach, or different solutions depending on the purpose of the vehicle, personal or commercial

4. A template business plan for inspection facilities that will recommend and financially evaluate needed investments inter alia: facilities to conduct used vehicles’ inspections and supplies of needed technical equipment, e-systems to manage data as needed, communication and awareness campaigns, etc.

Timing of the Assessment

This is the forecast of resources allocation for the AVIS assessment:

Activities Scheduled time

1. Preparation of the assessment 5 working days

2. Field work in the country 10 working days

3. Assessment and report writing 5 working days

The two consultants will jointly produce all deliverables. The estimated level of effort is maximum 20 days each.

32

This is the detailed schedule including additional activities to undertake. Dates are related to the signature of the contract:

Week #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Kick of meeting

Preparation of assessment

Mission

Presentation of mission outcome

Draft report

Final mission report

Required Assessments Resources

The selection of consultants should avoid conflicts of interest with personal or professional affiliations relevant to the assignment.

Consultants to conduct the assessment should be expert with extensive international experience in vehicle inspection and/or road transportation in general.

The consultant's team should be technically sound and not have an implicit or explicit interest in the study's outcomes. The confidence of the clients that they are getting the best technical advice is of paramount importance.

Travel expenses are budgeted for ten days stay in the country.

5.1.2 Support project

The specific support project for Tunisia can only be defined after conducting the AVIS project as outlined above, or a similar kind of project. To provide an indication, the support project undertaken after the diagnosis in Togo involved five consultants for 30 months (not full time).

5.2 Geometric design standards The overall conclusion for road geometric design guidelines in Tunisia is that a thorough revision of the current guidelines is required. The revision should make provision for developing first of all the country’s own guidelines with separate geometric design guidelines for urban roads, rural single carriageway road and dual carriageway roads. However, the assessment has revealed that a revision alone will not be particularly valuable, unless an explicit attempt is made to develop and describe the relationship between design elements and road safety. The concept of the safe systems approach must be firmly entrenched in the philosophy of the guidelines. The prioritisation process has identified several items that have a high relevance for design practices (and therefore guidelines) and that are poorly described in the current guidelines in Tunisia. In chapter 4, the three highest scoring items in

33

each of the main design elements (Basic elements; alignment; cross-section and intersection/interchanges) were selected as priority items. For further developing the guidelines, this chapter proposes detailed investigation and research of the top 10 items across the four main design elements. This serves to illustrate the process which the Tunisian road authorities should adopt in the revision of the guidelines. Such revision may entail desk-top type research based on international literature, detailed local field research to account for unique local conditions (such as the design vehicle; human behaviour, etc.) or simply adopting recognised international standards and values. Of importance, however, is that the revised guidelines be developed considering the specific research questions developed in this process.

5.2.1 Single carriageway rural roads

Table 14 provides an overview of the highest scoring design items from the four primary categories discussed in Chapter 4. This reveals that there are 6 items covered under basic requirements, 1 under alignment, 1 under cross-section and 2 under intersections. Each of these items needs to be elaborated upon during a structural and systematic revision of design guidelines for single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia. There is a clear need to develop and describe the relationship of these design elements with road safety and to make the effects of deviations from the norms clear. This will enable designers to gain insights into the relationships and of the consequences should they wish to deviate from the minimum norms described by the guidelines.

Table 14: Top priority items for investigation and inclusion of geometric design standards for single carriageway roads in Tunisia.

For each of the prioritised design items described in Table 14, research questions were developed which serve as the basis input for the team responsible for reviewing and drafting the new geometric

Design item Element

Weighted scores based on relevance and

degree of inclusion

(%)

Design vehicle characteristics Basic requirements 100.00

Longitudinal friction coefficient Basic requirements 83.33

Side friction coefficient Basic requirements 83.33

Deceleration Basic requirements 83.33

Safety distances Basic requirements 83.33

Stop areas for brake checking Alignment 83.33

Surfacing Cross-section 83.33

Traffic safety records for intersection types Intersections 83.33

Local speed limits Intersections 83.33

Overhead and lateral clearances Basic requirements 75.00

34

design guidelines for single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia. These are shown in Table 15 to Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata..

Basic criteria

Item 1: Design vehicle characteristics

Priority scoring (max 100)

100

Background The physical dimensions of vehicles, their performance and operational characteristics have a significant impact on the physical space provided and it is essential that these impacts are carefully considered during geometric and operational design.

The dynamic performance of recent vehicles under extreme geometrical conditions is not the same as that of older ones (ESP, EBD ...)

The acceleration and deceleration of heavy goods vehicles is also different from those of light vehicles, especially in case of steep slopes.

Underlying research questions

Which are the widths of lanes suitable to the vehicles in circulation?

What are the effects on safety of static and dynamic characteristics of vehicles?

What are the accepted acceleration and deceleration rates of different vehicle types given both the best and worst type driver? What coefficients of deceleration are relevant for sealed and unsealed roads for different vehicle types?

What are the maximum slopes and ramps that can be used by different types of vehicles?

Table 15: Research item 1: Design vehicle characteristics aspects in design of single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia

Basic criteria

Item 2: Longitudinal friction coefficient


83.3

Background Since vehicle tyres are the only part of a vehicle which remains in constant contact with the road, information about the tyre-road friction is critical to vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral and roll dynamics and control. Longitudinal friction coefficient is the basis for delivering critical parameters of road design, such as stopping distance, but also determines the speed limits on curves.


How can longitudinal friction coefficient measurements be incorporated into the road design guidelines?

What are the safety consequences related to side friction coefficients?

What are time effects?

What kind of pavements should be included in assessing side friction coefficient?

What about gravel/dirt roads?

To what extent will the longitudinal friction coefficient impact be stopping sight distance?

Table 16: Research item 2: Longitudinal friction coefficient on two-lane rural roads in Tunisia

35

Basic criteria

Item 3: Side friction coefficient


83.3

Background Since vehicle tyres are the only part of a vehicle which remains in constant contact with the road, information about the tyre-road friction is critical to vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral and roll dynamics and control. Side friction coefficient is the basis for delivering critical parameters of road design, such as the speed limits on curves and course correction in case of accidental exit.


How can the side friction coefficient measurements be incorporated into the road design guidelines?

What are the safety consequences related to longitudinal friction coefficients?

What kind of pavements should be included in assessing longitudinal friction coefficient?

What about gravel/dirt roads?

What impact does the side friction coefficient have on shoulder widths?

Table 17: Research item 3: Side friction coefficient on two-lane rural roads in Tunisia

Basic criteria

Item 4: Deceleration Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3


The dynamic performance of recent vehicles under extreme geometrical conditions is not the same as that of older ones (ESP, EBD)



What are the accepted acceleration and deceleration rates of different vehicle types given both the best and worst type driver?

What coefficients of deceleration are relevant for sealed and unsealed roads for different vehicle types?

What is the relationship between SSD, deceleration rate and safety?

What is the relationship between deceleration rates and road safety given different vehicle, driver and road surface types?

Table 18: Research item 4: Deceleration aspects in design of single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia

36

Basic criteria

Item 5: Safety distance Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Safety distance is intrinsically linked to stopping distance which is the result of the reaction time distance and the braking distance. It is dependent on the reaction time of the driver, the braking ability of the vehicle and the coefficient of friction between the tyres and the road surface. It is an integral input in the determination of stopping sight distances (SSD) and the underlying parameters for coefficients of friction, driver reaction and perception times etc. are vital in its determination.


What are parameter values for driver perception and reaction times, vehicle braking capabilities and deceleration rates and road friction coefficients in establishing stopping (sight) distance?

What is the relationship between different parameter values and road safety?

How does the quality of pavement and especially how do dirt roads impact safety distances?

Are the parameter values established by international studies such as EU Sight (Hogema, Stuiver, Kroon, Broeren, & Barrell, 2015; Weber; et al., 2016) relevant for Tunisian road design guidelines?

Table 199: Research item 5: Stopping distance requirements in the design of single carriageway rural roads

Alignment Item 6: Stop areas for brake

checking Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Traffic in difficult locations requires the use of brakes more often. This use may lead to a reduction in their efficiency, which is due to heating or wear.

Prolonged or repeated braking, especially when they occur at high speed while developing high energies, have the effect of dangerously heating up brake linings and drums.

This phenomenon is even more recurrent for heavy goods vehicles.

Hence the need to provide stopping areas for brake checks. The choice of their location depends on several parameters, including the characteristics of the brakes, sight distance and the dimensions of vehicles.


What is the relationship between brake performance drop, slope and speed?

How to integrate the level of traffic into the sizing of the areas for brake checking?

Are there any statistical studies on the various global parameters (length, average slope, elevation gain, total traffic, heavy goods vehicle traffic) to determine the variable whose correlation is the best with the importance of the incidents?

Table 20: Research item 6: Stop areas for brake checking in design of single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia

37

Cross-section

Item 7: Surfacing Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background The surfacing is a vital element in road safety. It is the first parameter that determines the friction coefficient.

Its behaviour and evolution over time must provide a minimum level of service for users.


How t0 determine the type of surfacing?

How does traffic influence the choice of surfacing?

What are the accepted degradation thresholds?

Table 21: Research item 7: Surfacing in design of single carriageway rural roads in Tunisia

Intersections Item 8: Traffic safety

records for intersection types


83.3

Background The recording of road safety data is important and has a significant contribution to improving road safety of road design guidelines. These recordings are even more important in singular points, especially intersections.


What are the traffic and safety performance characteristics of the different intersection types?

What are the positive and negative safety consequences for all road users related to the intersection types?

Table 22: Research item 8: Traffic safety records for intersection types on rural two-lane roads in Tunisia

Intersections Item 9: Local speed limits Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Crossroads, whatever their type, are singular points and require a particular and detailed analysis. In addition to the sight distance that must be ensured, the speed at the approach of the intersections must be punctually adapted (reduced) according to the type of the intersection, the level of the traffic and the predominant movements.


What is the visibility distance when approaching the junction?

What are the positive and negative safety consequences for all road users related to the intersection types?

Table 23: Research item 9: Local speed limits on rural two-lane roads in Tunisia

38

Basic criteria

Items 10: Overhead and lateral clearances


75,0

Background Overhead and lateral clearances are essential in the design of underpasses, bridges and other structures over or under roads. Guidelines need to be regularly updated to ensure that the design vehicles adopted represent the actual population of vehicle using roads. Furthermore, these provisions must provide a minimum and acceptable level of comfort and not negatively affect roadway capacity by introducing uncertainty among drivers of vehicles. Specific attention needs to be provided to remedial treatments of sub-standard structures. Also, the provision of these distances should be in accordance to speed.


Are data available to derive representative design vehicle templates for road design in Tunisia?

Are international design vehicles appropriate for determining applicable values vertical and lateral clearances in Tunisian guidelines?

Table 24: Research items 10: Lateral and overhead clearances on rural roads in Tunisia.

5.2.2 Dual carriageway roads

The assessment of Tunisian geometric design guidelines for dual carriageway rural roads (see Section 4.1 and 4.2.2) reveal a number of items that were inadequately dealt with in current guidelines and which were deemed important and relevant to include in future guidelines. As mentioned and recommended, new geometric guidelines for rural dual carriageway roads should be developed and these should include the design items described by the assessment in this report. From a road safety perspective, it is important that a direct link be made between the design elements and the safety consequences and effects and that the guidelines adopt a safe systems philosophy (prevent crashes and minimise crash severity).

Table 25 presents the most critical in term of scoring design items for dual carriageway roads that need to be included in the new guidelines, and where additional research is necessary to substantiate the relationship between the design element and road safety.

Many of these items relate to Basic requirements which leads to suggest that road safety in these sections is poorly incorporated and the importance of safety in the design process undermined. Several of the prioritised items for dual carriageways are the same as for single carriageway roads (See 5.2.1) and that is not surprising as many of these are fundamental for geometric design and for road safety and common to both road types.

39

Table 25: Top priority items for investigation and inclusion of geometric design standards for dual carriageway roads in Tunisia.

Similar to 5.2.1 (Single carriageway rural roads), the prioritised design items for dual carriageway roads (

Table 25) were further developed into research themes (Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata. - Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata.). For each item a short description of the relationship of the item and design is provided and based on the scoring, a number of underlying research questions were developed. The revision of the Tunisian road design guidelines should explicitly take these questions into account and ensure that the road safety consequences of design choices are described in the guidelines.

Design item Element

Weighted scores based on relevance

and degree of inclusion (%)

Design vehicle characteristics Basic requirements 100.00

Longitudinal friction coefficient Basic requirements 83.33

Side friction coefficient Basic requirements 83.33

Crossing sight distance Basic requirements 83.33

Safety distances Basic requirements 83.33

Surfacing Cross-section 83.33

Road markings Cross-section 83.33

Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway through the interchange area

Intersection 83.33

Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area Intersection 83.33

Turning radii for design vehicle Intersection 83.33

40

Basic criteria

Item 1: Design vehicle characteristics


100


The dynamic performance of recent vehicles under extreme geometrical conditions is not the same as that of older ones (ESP, EBD ...)



Which are the widths of lanes suitable to the vehicles in circulation?

What are the effects on safety of static and dynamic characteristics of vehicles?

What are the accepted acceleration and deceleration rates of different vehicle types given both the best and worst type driver? What coefficients of deceleration are relevant for sealed and unsealed roads for different vehicle types?

What are the maximum slopes and ramps that can be used by different types of vehicles?

Table 26: Research item 1: Design vehicle characteristics on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

Basic criteria

Item 2: Longitudinal friction coefficient


83.3

Background Since vehicle tyres are the only part that vehicle body that are in contact with the road, information about the tyre-road friction is critical to vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral and roll dynamics and control. Longitudinal friction coefficient is the basis for delivering critical parameters of road design, such as stopping distance, but also determines the speed limits on curves.


How can longitudinal friction coefficient measurements be incorporated into the road design guidelines?

What kind of pavements should be included in assessing longitudinal friction coefficients?

To what extent will the longitudinal friction coefficient impact be stopping sight distance?

Table 27: Research item 2: Longitudinal friction coefficient on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

41

Basic criteria

Item 3: Side friction coefficient


83.3

Background Since vehicle tyres are the only part of a vehicle which remains in constant contact with the road, information about the tyre-road friction is critical to vehicle’s longitudinal, lateral and roll dynamics and control. Side friction coefficient is the basis for delivering critical parameters of road design, such as the speed limits on curves and course correction in case of accidental exit.


How can Side friction coefficient measurements be incorporated into the road design guidelines?

What are the safety consequences related to longitudinal friction coefficients?

What kind of pavements should be included in assessing longitudinal friction coefficient?

What impact does the side friction coefficient have on shoulder widths?

Table 26: Research item 3: Side friction coefficient on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

Basic criteria

Items 4: Crossing sight distance


83.3

Background A large proportion of crashes occur at junctions and the severity of these is generally higher at intersection in rural areas, primarily due to higher speeds that procure dual roads

The design of the intersections must be clear of any obstructions, whatever their nature, which may affect the sight distance.


Horizontal and vertical elements of the route approaching the intersection allow sufficient sight distance?

Land use (construction, dense plantation) does not obstruct visibility at the crossroads?

Table 27: Research items 4, 5: Defining safety distances and vertical - lateral clearances on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

42

Basic criteria

Item 5: Safety distance Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Safety distance is intrinsically linked to stopping distance which is the result of the reaction time distance and the braking distance. It is dependent on the reaction time of the driver, the braking ability of the vehicle and the coefficient of friction between the tyres and the road surface. It is an integral input in the determination of stopping sight distances (SSD) and the underlying parameters for coefficients of friction, driver reaction and perception times etc. are vital in its determination.


What are parameter values for driver perception and reaction times, vehicle braking capabilities and deceleration rates and road friction coefficients in establishing stopping (sight) distance?

What is the relationship between different parameter values and road safety?

How does the quality of pavement and especially how do dirt roads impact safety distances?

Are the parameter values established by international studies such as EU Sight (Hogema, Stuiver, Kroon, Broeren, & Barrell, 2015; Weber; et al., 2016) relevant for Tunisian road design guidelines?

Table 28: Research item 5: Safety distance on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

Cross-section

Item 6: Surfacing Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background The surfacing is a vital element in road safety. It is the first parameter that determines the friction coefficient.

Its behaviour and evolution over time must provide a minimum level of service for users.


How to determine the type of surfacing?

How does traffic influence the choice of surfacing?

What are the accepted degradation thresholds?

Table 29: Research item 6: Surfacing on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

43

Cross-section

Item 7: Road markings Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Road markings have a significant role in guiding vehicles. Especially on intersection – interchange areas. In such areas, without adequate road markings indicating the presence of a lane drop to drivers, erratic manoeuvres might occur. In the case of merging, such manoeuvres can be extremely hazardous. During overtaking also, the presence of road markings is vital.


How does local climate affect road markings?

To what extent do road markings impact pavement friction?

What are the safety benefits of road markings and the consequences of poor maintenance on safety?

How can road markings be made to last longer?

How can road markings be visible during night driving?

Table 30: Research item 7: Road markings on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

Intersection

Item 8 & 9: Maximum absolute value for the grade

of the freeway / Minimum value for horizontal

curvature throughout the interchange area


83.3

Background The risk of accidents in the interchange areas is greater than in the straight section because it is a manoeuvring area and users must make decisions on routes.

Therefore, geometric conditions must facilitate manoeuvres while offering better visibility.


What characteristics of vehicles are adopted for determining the values?

What type of locations are appropriate?

How does sight distance affect these parameters?

Table 31: Research item 8 & 9: Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway /Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

44

Intersection Item 10: Turning radii for

design vehicle Priority scoring (max 100)

83.3

Background Guidelines need to be regularly updated to ensure that the design vehicles adopted represent the actual population of vehicle using roads. Furthermore, these provisions must provide a minimum and acceptable level of comfort and not negatively affect roadway capacity by introducing uncertainty among drivers of vehicles. Special attention needs to be paid to remedial treatments of sub-standard structures.


Are data available to derive representative design vehicle templates for road design in Tunisia?

Are international design vehicles appropriate for determining applicable values for turning radii in Tunisian guidelines?

Assess current structures on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia and establish compliance with norms for turning radii?

Table 32: Research item 10: Turning radii for design vehicle on dual carriageway roads in Tunisia

45

6 Recommendations for improvement projects/practices in Tunisia

6.1 Road design standards

The assessment of the geometric design guidelines for single and dual carriageway roads in Tunisia revealed that the guidelines are dated and in need of updating. The assessment revealed that road safety in general, and the safe systems thinking in particular, have not been systematically integrated into the design guidelines or procedures described in them. Consequently, road designers cannot reliably estimate the road safety consequences of design choices and there is need to make these explicit in the guidelines.

It is recommended that the geometric design guidelines for roads in Tunisia be systematically reviewed and revised with the aim of incorporating safe systems thinking into design practices. The assessment revealed that most design aspects covered by the four primary design categories in the Intersafe procedures were not adequately covered in the Tunisian guidelines. The prioritisation process, in which the relevance of each design aspect was assessed in conjunction with the degree to which the specific aspect was dealt with in current guidelines, revealed that in terms of basic requirements, there is a need to revise the items dealing with vehicle acceleration/deceleration criteria, sight distances, stopping distances, lateral clearances and the approach to speed limits.

Chapters dealing with alignment need to be revised with respect to items dealing with vehicle design, friction coefficient, curves, gradients and design consistency. The chapters dealing with cross-section need revision with respect to warrants and spacing, radius and road markings. Chapters dealing with intersections need revision with respect to sight distances, safety records and design speeds.

Based on these results, it is recommended that the entire guidelines be systematically revised and that the link with road safety impacts is systematically included to ensure that the consequences of design choices can be established during the design process. Furthermore, it is essential that the concept of the safe systems approach be entrenched in the guidelines to ensure that the philosophy is to prevent crashes from occurring (safety by design) and where these cannot be prevented, the consequences are limited (forgiving design).

The revision should make provision for developing first of all the country’s own guidelines. Furthermore, it is recommended that separate geometric guidelines be prepared for single carriageway rural roads and for dual carriageway rural roads. Although urban roads have not been dealt with in this report, it is advisable to develop specific road design and road safety standards for urban roads as well.

A revision of the standards and guidelines as suggested above could be financed through (for example) the UN Road Safety Trust Fund, provided such project proposals are submitted by the government itself via and with the support of one of the accredited agencies and with the support or organisations/stakeholders with relevant international and regional experience. It is advisable to couple such proposals with other initiatives, such as twinning projects, and other initiatives within the SaferAfrica project.

To ensure that road designs comply with the most recent safety standards, it is also recommended that road safety audit and inspection procedures are not only formalised for all new road construction projects in Tunisia but also systematically implemented. These audits and inspections must be mandatory, and the recommendations of these safety procedures must be formally adopted in the design process. To ensure that audit and inspection findings are incorporated in revised designs, the procedures must be given a binding status. In that way, design teams and developers cannot ignore or neglect to seriously consider changes aimed at eliminating design constraints and potential failures. Arguments to not adapt potential safety defects in the design process will be the exception.

It is recognised that capacity in road safety in general, and road safety auditing in particular, may be a serious constraint in the Tunisian situation. However, there are capacity building programmes

46

available within SaferAfrica (WP6) as there are specific courses - aimed at training road safety auditors – available in several countries. The Tunisian road authorities should pursue a programme to develop the necessary strategies for implementing and formalising road safety audits, whilst simultaneously developing action plans to develop and train the required resources to support the implementation thereof.

6.2 Recommendations for improvement of vehicle standards Precise recommendations for the improvement of the standards for vehicles will be possible once the assessment activity described in item 5.1 of this document has been completed. Nevertheless, it seems possible to foresee that one of the first issue to tackle will be to develop the detailed definition of some of the standards, including the evaluation to the practical adherence to UN Regulations.

47

7 References African Development Bank, 2001, « Rapport d’évaluation: Projet d’aménagement du réseau routier classé- Phase 3- République Tunisienne» ; BAF ; 67

African Development Bank. (2014a). Road Safety Manual for Africa: New roads and schemes-Road safety Audit.

African Development Bank. (2014b). Road Safety Manuals for Africa, Existing roads-Pro-active approaches.

African Development Bank. (2014c). Road Safety Manuals for Africa: Existing roads-reactive approaches.

ARP- Aménagement des Routes Principales, the French guidelines for the design of interurban trunk roads https://www.scribd.com/doc/220912955/amenagement-des-routes-principales-ARP-pdf

Carnis L., Yerpez J., Bouhamed N. (2018), Road Safety Management Capacity Review – Tunisia, SaferAfrica WP 5 Report, D5.3

ERSF. (1996). INTERSAFE : technical guide on road safety for interurban roads. Brussels.

ICTAVRU - Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d’Aménagement des Voies Rapides Urbaines, the French guidelines for designing high speed urban roads and motorways.

ICTAAL- Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d’Aménagement des Autoroutes de Liaison, the French guidelines for designing interurban motorways http://dtrf.setra.fr/pdf/pj/Dtrf/0002/Dtrf-0002540/DT2540.pdf

Khalifi, A,. Subit, D. (2017): Vehicle Type-Approval and Road Worthiness Test in Togo. WB, GRSF and CITA

Lamm, R., Psarianos, B., Mailaendar, T. (1999). Highway design and traffic safety engineering handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.

MEFF (Ministère de l’économie et des finances français), 2015, « Le secteur des transports en Tunisie », Direction générale du Trésor, 3p PAU : Urban Development Plan.

Schermers, G., Dijkstra, A., Mesken, J., & Baan, D. d. R. H. (2013). Richtlijnen voor wegontwerp tegen het licht gehouden.

Schermers, G., Mavromatis, S., Fernández, E. (2019). Assessment of standards for road design and vehicle safety in Kenya: Proposed amendments and enabling project plans. SaferAfrica WP5 report, deliverable D5.20.

SETRA. (1998). Aménagement des Carrefours Interurbains sur les routes principales – Carrefours plans - Guide Technique.

SETRA. (2006). Comprendre Les Principaux Paramètres De Conception Géométrique Des Routes. 29. Retrieved from http://www.infra-transports-materiaux.cerema.fr/IMG/pdf/conception_geometrique_route.pdf

SETRA, & LCPC. (1994). Conception et dimensionnement des structures de chaussée — guide technique. Guide Technique, Dec. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Conception+et+dimensionnement+des+structures+de+chaussées#1

Souleimen Ouannes M, 2016, « La sécurité routière en Tunisie, comprendre les problèmes pour mieux agir ». C·A·Perspectives on Tunisia No. 04-2016, Center for Applied Policy Research 8p.

48

Usami, D.S., Wounba, J.F., Nkeng, G.E., Zammataro, S., Fernández, E. (2019). Studies on the standardisation of vehicles and road infrastructure – Cameroon Report. SaferAfrica WP 5 report, deliverable D5.17.

49

8 Appendixes

8.1 SaferAfrica assessment of the relevance for safety of Intersafe design items to Tunisian design guidelines

8.1.1 Interurban single carriageway roads

1

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS A B C D

BASISCRITERIA Relevant to

safety

Relevance covered in literature

(Qualitative/descriptive to numerical:

Researchable in regards to

safety

Final score Priority

D=AxBxC

(small to large: 1-3) (1-3) Very low to very high

1-3)

1.1 General approach

1.1.1 Design speed approach 1 3 1 3

1.1.2 Speed limit approach 2 3 2 12

1.1.3 Actual speed approach 3 3 1 9

1.2 Reaction time 3 2 1 6

1.3 Eye position and object position

1.3.1 Eye height 1 2 2 4

1.3.2 Lateral eye position 2 2 2 8

1.3.3 Object height 3 2 2 12

1.3.4 Lateral object position 3 2 2 12

1.4 Friction coefficient

1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient 3 3 2 18

1.4.2 Side friction coefficient 3 3 2 18

1.5 Vehicle deceleration and acceleration

1.5.1 Deceleration 3 3 2 18

1.5.2 Acceleration 1 2 2 4

1.6 Action distances

1.6.1 Stopping distance 3 3 2 18

1.6.2 Overtaking distance 2 2 2 8

1.7 Sight distance

1.7.1 Stopping sight distance 3 3 2 18

1.7.2 Meeting sight distance 3 3 2 18

1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance 3 3 2 18

1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance 2 2 3 12

1.7.5 Crossing sight distance 3 2 1 6

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics 3 3 3 27

1.9 Clearances

1.9.1 Dimensions 3 3 2 18

1.9.2 Swept path 2 3 3 18

1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances 3 3 3 27

1.9.4 Safety distances 3 3 2 18

Annex Road lighting 3 3 2 18

50

2 ALIGNMENT A B C D

ALIGNMENT Relevant to

safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:

1-3) (1-3) Very low to very high

1-3) 2.2 Horizontal alignment

2.2.1 Principles 1 1 1 1

2.2.2 Straight sections and large radius curves 1 1 1 1

2.2.3 Curves

2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended 3 3 2 18

2.2.3.2 Super elevation 3 3 2 18

2.2.3.3 Minimum radius 3 3 2 18

2.2.4 Rules for linking alignment elements

2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section 3 2 2 12

2.2.4.2 Compatibility of two successive curves

3 2 2 12

Compatibiliteit van twee opeenvolgende bogen 0

2.2.4.3 Transition curves

2 3 2 12 Overgangsbogen

2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend 3 1 1 3

2.2.4.5 Design consistency 3 2 2 12

2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads 3 2 2 12

2.3 Vertical alignment

2.3.1 Gradient 2 3 2 12

2.3.2 Vertical connecting curves

2.3.2.1 Convex curves 3 3 2 18

2.3.2.2 Concave curves 1 3 2 6

2.3.3 Climbing lanes

2.3.3.1 Passing/overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4) 2 2 2 8

2.3.3.2 Auxiliary (climbing or passing) lane suppression: type and length of drop

3 2 2 12

2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads 3 1 1 3

2.3.5 Emergency escape ramps

2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing 2 3 2 12

2.3.5.2 Type and length 2 3 2 12

2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking 3 2 3 18

2.4 Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments 2 3 2 12

51

3 CROSS-SECTION A B C D DWARSPROFIEL

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3) 3.1.3 Integrated design 2 2 2 8

3.2 Main carriageway

3.2.1 Road Width 2 3 2 12

3.2.2 Running lanes

3.2.2.1 Lane width vs design speed 1 3 2 6

3.2.3 Crossfall 2 3 2 12

3.2.4 Hard shoulders

3.2.4.1 Shoulder width suitable for emergency lane 2 1 2 4

3.2.5 Inner shoulder 1 3 2 6

3.2.6 Median separation 1 2 2 4

3.2.7 Turnouts, safety zones 1 1 2 2

3.2.8 Surfacing 3 3 2 18

3.2.9 Road markings 3 2 2 12

3.3 Roadside

3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones 2 3 2 12

3.3.2 Type of Obstacle 3 1 2 6

3.3.3 Soft shoulders 1 3 2 6

3.3.4 Slopes 1 3 3 9

3.3.5 Drainage channels 2 1 2 4

3.4 Secondary lanes

3.4.1 Cycle lane 3 3 2 18

3.4.2 General 2 1 2 4

3.4.3 Pedestrian sidewalk 3 3 2 18

3.4.4 Bus stops bays 3 3 2 18

3.5 Access control

3.5.1 Frontage roads 2 2 2 8

3.6 Tunnels 2 2 2 8

52

4 INTERSECTIONS A B C D KRUISPUNTEN

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3) 4.1 Intersection types

4.1.1 Number of arms 2 3 2 12

4.1.2 Traffic control mode 3 2 2 12

4.1.3 Traffic conflict countermeasures for motor vehicles 2 2 2 8

4.1.4 Traffic conflict countermeasures for vulnerable road users

2 2 2 8

4.2 Use of design templates 3 3 2 18

4.3 Design principles 3 3 2 18

4.4 Traffic safety records for intersection types 2 3 3 18

4.5 Intersection between a distributor (high level) and a local road

4.5.1 3- and 4-way 2 3 2 12

4.5.2 Priority control mode 3 2 2 12

4.5.3 Minor road channelization 2 2 2 8

4.5.4 Major road left turn lanes 3 3 2 18

4.5.5 Right turn lanes 2 3 2 12

4.5.6 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 3 3 2 18

4.5.7 Local speed limits 3 3 2 18

4.5.8 Crossing sight distance requirements 2 2 2 8

4.6 Intersection between two distributor (high level) roads

4.6.1 X or Y intersection 2 2 2 8

4.6.2 Roundabout

4.6.2.1 Use 2 2 2 8

4.6.2.2 Shape and layout (refer to whether it is a traditional t or X or some deviation)

2 2 2 8

4.6.2.3 Crossing sight distance requirements 3 3 2 18

4.6.2.4 Bicycle facilities 3 2 2 12

4.6.3 Traffic signals 3 2 2 12

4.6.4 Grade separation 3 1 2 6

53

8.1.2 Interurban dual carriageway motorways

1


BASISCRITERIA Relevant to

safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3) 1.1 General approach

1.1.1 Design speed approach 1 3 1 3

1.1.2 Speed limit approach 2 3 2 12

1.1.3 Actual speed approach 3 3 1 9

1.2 Reaction time 3 2 1 6

1.3 Eye position and object position

1.3.1 Eye height 1 2 2 4

1.3.2 Lateral eye position 2 2 2 8

1.3.3 Object height 3 1 2 6

1.3.4 Lateral object position 3 1 2 6

1.4 Friction coefficient

1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient 3 3 2 18

1.4.2 Side friction coefficient 3 3 2 18

1.5 Vehicle deceleration and acceleration

1.5.1 Deceleration 3 3 2 18

1.5.2 Acceleration 2 2 2 8

1.6 Action distances

1.6.1 Stopping distance 3 3 2 18

1.6.2 Overtaking distance 1 1 2 2

1.7 Sight distance

1.7.1 Stopping sight distance 3 3 2 18

1.7.2 Meeting sight distance 1 3 2 6

1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance 1 3 3 9

1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance 1 3 3 9

1.7.5 Crossing sight distance 3 3 2 18

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics 3 3 3 27

1.9 Clearances

1.9.1 Dimensions 3 3 2 18

1.9.2 Swept path 2 3 3 18

1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances 2 3 2 12

1.9.4 Safety distances 3 3 2 18

1.9.5 Dynamic lateral clearance 3 2 2 12

1.10 Road image (Rhol=2to7*RBol) 3 1 2 6

1.11 Recommendations for mitigating barrier effect impacts. 1 1 1 1

Annex Road lighting 3 1 1 3

54

2

ALIGNMENT A B C D ALIGNEMENT

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3) 2.2 Horizontal alignment

2.2.1 Principles 2 2 1 4

2.2.2 Straight sections and large radius curves

2 3 2 12

2.2.3 Curves

2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended 3 3 2 18

2.2.3.2 Super elevation 3 3 2 18

2.2.3.3 Minimum radius 3 3 2 18

2.2.4 Rules for linking alignment elements

2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section 3 3 2 18

2.2.4.2 Compatibility of two successive curves

3 3 2 18

2.2.4.3 Transition curves 2 3 2 12

2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend 3 1 1 3

2.2.4.5 Design consistency 3 2 2 12

2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads

3 1 1 3

2.3 Vertical alignment

2.3.1 Gradient 2 3 2 12

2.3.2 Vertical connecting curves

2.3.2.1 Convex curves 3 3 2 18

2.3.2.2 Concave curves 1 3 2 6

2.3.3 Climbing lanes

2.3.3.1 Passing/Overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4)

2 2 2 8


2 3 2 12

2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads 3 2 2 12


2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing 3 3 2 18

2.3.5.2 Type and length 2 3 2 12

2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking 1 2 2 4

2.4 Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments

2 3 2 12

55

3

CROSS-SECTION A B C D DWARSPROFIEL

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large: 1-3) (1-3)

Very low to very high

1-3)

3.1.1 Relationship curve radius / superlevation / speed 3 3 2 18

3.1.2 Superelevation (transition type / length)

2 1 2 4

3.1.3 Integrated design 2 2 2 8

3.2 Main carriageway

3.2.1 Road Width 2 3 2 12

3.2.2 Running lanes

3.2.2.1 Lane width vs. design speed 2 2 2 8

3.2.3 Crossfall 3 3 2 18

3.2.4 Hard shoulders

3.2.4.1 Outside shoulder width suitable for emergency lane

3 2 2 12

3.2.5 Inner shoulder 2 1 2 4

3.2.6 Central reservation 3 3 2 18

3.2.7 Median separation 3 2 2 12

3.2.8 Turnouts, safety zones 3 2 2 12

3.2.9 Surfacing 3 3 2 18

3.2.10 Road markings 3 3 2 18

3.3 Roadside

3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones 3 3 2 18

3.3.2 Type of Obstacle 3 1 2 6

3.3.3 Soft shoulders 2 3 2 12

3.3.4 Slopes 1 3 3 9

3.3.5 Drainage channels 2 1 2 4

3.4 Auxiliary lanes (e.g. bus lanes) 3 3 2 18

3.5 Recommended cross-sections 2 1 2 4

3.6 Access control 3 3 2 18

3.7 Tunnels 3 2 2 12

3.8 Secondary lanes

3.8.1 General 1 1 2 2

3.8.2 Frontage roads 2 1 2 4

3.8.3 Rest and service areas 3 2 2 12

56

4 INTERCHANGE A B C D INTERCHANGE

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3) 4.1 Interchange and Ramp Spacing

4.1.1 Minimum value for spacing distance?

2 3 2 12

4.1.2 Minimum value for distance between successive entrances and exits?

2 3 2 12

4.2 Approach Alignment to Interchange

4.2.1 Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway through the interchange area

3 3 2 18

4.2.2 Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area

3 3 2 18

4.2.3 Sight distance requirement in advance of each exit (desirably decision sight distance)

3 3 2 18

4.3 Interchange Configurations

4.3.1

Differentiation between “service interchange” (between motorway and other road) and “system interchange” (between motorways)

4.3.1.1

An appropriate array of interchange configurations and variations must be evaluated in the design study phase

2 1 2 4

4.3.2

Interchange configuration appropriate for the operational needs, fits the topography and potential site conditions and constraints,

4.3.2.1 Requirements for consistency in exit pattern with other nearby interchanges

2 2 2 8

4.3.3 Requirement for completeness of directional traffic movements provision

1 2 2 4

4.3.4 Mandatory installation of all exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?

3 2 2 12

4.3.5 Provisions for weaving weaving section design?

4.3.5.1 Distance between the physical merge and exit nose?

3 3 2 18

4.3.6 Location of crossroad in the interchange

4.3.6.1 Over the freeway 2 2 2 8

4.3.7 Route Continuity

4.3.7.1 Priority route is the through facility 3 1 3 9

4.4 Ramp Design

4.4.1 Design speed of the ramp ≥50% of the mainline design speed 3 3 2 18

4.4.2 Length for acceleration at entrance ramps

3 3 2 18

4.4.3 Length for deceleration at exit ramps? 3 3 2 18

4.4.4 Balanced number of exit and entrance?

1 1 2 2

4.5 Crossroad Design

57

4 INTERCHANGE A B C D INTERCHANGE

Relevant to safety




safety


D=AxBxC

(small to large:


1-3)

4.5.1 Sidewalks and bicyclist facilities provided along the interchange crossroad.

4.5.1.1 Traffic control at the crossings at interchange ramps (Y or N)

1 1 2 2

4.5.2 Length of access control along the crossroad beyond the interchange, to ensure its integrity

2 3 2 12

4.5.3

Land development and access management measures are in place for the interchange area (Y or N)

3 2 2 12

4.5.4 Design criteria for ramp/crossroad intersection

4.5.4.1 Turning radii for design vehicle 3 3 2 18

4.5.4.2 Capacity 3 3 2 18

4.5.4.3 Traffic control 3 2 2 12

4.5.4.4 Channelization 2 2 2 8

4.5.4.5 Intersection sight distance 3 2 2 12

58

8.2 Degree to which Intersafe geometric design items have been covered in Tunisian guidelines

8.2.1 Interurban single carriageway roads items mentioned and rating Rating team:………………………………… Country: TUNISIA Guidelines assessed: ARP

1 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS BASISCRITERIA

In guidelines?

Veiligheidseffect genoemd? Zo ja, hoe groot? Safety effect mentioned?, If so, how big

Wat is aangenomen of gekozen als waarde? What is the assumed/adopted parameter values

Zijn gevolgen voor veiligheid bij afwijking genoemd? Are the effects of deviating from the norm on safety mentioned/described

Aard onderbouwing Describe the nature of the motivation describing the relationship

Source (if relevant)


1.1.1 Design speed approach Uitgangspunt ontwerpsnelheid

Yes No 90-110 None 1.1 ARP

1.1.2 Speed limit approach Uitgangspunt snelheidslimiet

Yes No 90-110 None 1.1 ARP

1.1.3 Actual speed approach Uitgangspunt feitelijke snelheid

Yes No V85 Real speed 4.1 ARP

1.2 Reaction time Reactietijd

Yes No 2 S None 4.2 ARP

1.3 Eye position and object position Positie van oog en object

1.3.1 Eye height Ooghoogte

Yes No 1m None 4.2 ARP (P76-77-78)

1.3.2 Lateral eye position Laterale oogpositie

Yes No Variable None 4.2 ARP (P76-77-78)

1.3.3 Object height Objecthoogte


1.3.4 Lateral object position Laterale objectpositie


1.4 Friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt

1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt in lengterichting

No

1.4.2 Side friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt in dwarsrichting

No

59


In guidelines?






1.5

Vehicle deceleration and acceleration Vertraging en versnelling van het voertuig

1.5.1 Deceleration vertraging

No

1.5.2 Acceleration Versnelling

No

1.6 Action distances Benodigde minimale afstand

1.6.1 Stopping distance Stopafstand

Yes No da Distance to pass from V85 to 0 4.2 ARP (P77)

1.6.2 Overtaking distance Inhaalafstand

Yes No 500m None 4.2.d ARP

1.7 Sight distance Zichtafstanden

1.7.1 Stopping sight distance Stopzicht

Yes No da Distance to pass from V85 to 0 4.2.b ARP

1.7.2 Meeting sight distance Zichtafstand bolle boog

Yes No 3xV85 None 4.2.a ARP

1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance Inhaalzicht

Yes No 500m None 4.2.d ARP

1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance Zicht om inhalen af te breken

No

1.7.5 Crossing sight distance Stopzicht bij kruispunt

Yes No 8xV85 None 4.2.c ARP

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics Ontwerpvoertuigkenmerken

No

1.9 Clearances Verkeersruimte

1.9.1 Dimensions Afmetingen

Yes No 3.5 None 2.2.b ARP

1.9.2 Swept path Baanverbreding

Yes No 2.3 ARP

60


In guidelines?






1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances Profiel van vrije ruimte

Yes No 4.3m, 4.5m

4m,7m

None 2.2.c, 2.5.d & 4.2 ARP

1.9.4 Safety distances Objectafstanden

No

Annex Road lighting Openbare verlichting

Yes Yes 8.3 ARP

61

2 ALIGNMENT ALIGNEMENT

In HWO?

In guidelines?

Veiligheidseffect genoemd? Zo ja,

hoe groot? Safety effect

mentioned?, If so, how big

Wat is aangenomen of gekozen als

waarde?

What is the assumed/adopted parameter value

Zijn gevolgen voor veiligheid bij

afwijking genoemd? Are the effects of deviating from the

norm on safety mentioned/described

Aard onderbouwing

Describe the nature of the motivation describing the

relationship

Source

2.2 Horizontal alignment Horizontaal alignement

2.2.1 Principles Principes

Yes No Ch 3 ARP

2.2.2

Straight sections and large radius curves Rechte wegvakken en bogen met grote boogstraal

Yes High speed

3.1 ARP

2.2.3 Curves Bogen

2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended Te vermijden boogstralen

Indirect Variable None 3.1.a ARP

2.2.3.2 Super elevation Verkanting

Yes No Variable None 3.1.d & 3.1.f ARP

2.2.3.3 Minimum radius Minimum boogstraal

Yes Comfort Variable None 3.1.a & Annexe 1

ARP

2.2.4 Rules for linking alignment elements Regels om rechte wegvakken en bogen met elkaar te verbinden

2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section Boog na een lang recht wegvak

Yes No 6.3.a ARP

2.2.4.2

Compatibility of two successive curves Compatibiliteit van twee opeenvolgende bogen

Yes No

3.1.c ARP

2.2.4.3 Transition curves Overgangsbogen

Yes Variable None 3.1.e ARP

2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend Gebreken binnen een boog

No

2.2.4.5 Design consistency

Indirect

2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads Aanpak voor verbeteringen

Yes 1.2 ARP

62


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

2.3 Vertical alignment Verticaal alignement

2.3.1 Gradient Hellingshoek

Yes Dynamic comfort

Signt comfort 5%, 6% & 7%

None 3.2.a ARP

2.3.2 Vertical connecting curves Vorm van verticale boog

2.3.2.1 Convex curves Bolle boog

Yes Dynamic comfort

Signt comfort 1500m,2200m & 3000m

None 3.2.a ARP

2.3.2.2 Concave curves Holle boog

Yes Dynamic comfort

Signt comfort 1500m,3000m & 6000m

None 3.2.a ARP

2.3.3 Climbing lanes Kruipstrook

2.3.3.1 Passing/overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4)

Yes Speed heterogeneity 1.5.d & 6.1.c ARP


Yes Speed heterogeneity 2.4.b ARP

2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads Aanpak voor verbeteringen

Yes No 1.2 ARP


2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing

No

2.3.5.2 Type and length

No

2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking

No

2.4

Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments Aaneensluiting van horizontale en verticale elementen

Yes Sight confort Yes

3.3

63

3 CROSS-SECTION DWARSPROFIEL

In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

3.1.3 Integrated design Geïntegreerd ontwerp van dwarsprofiel en alignement

Yes Ch 2 ARP

3.2 Main carriageway Hoofdrijbaan

3.2.1 Road Width Verhardingsbreedte

Yes No 3.5m None 2.2.b ARP

3.2.2 Running lanes Rijstroken

3.2.2.1 Lane width vs design speed

No

3.2.3 Crossfall Afschot

Yes

3.2.4 Hard shoulders Vluchtstrook

3.2.4.1 Shoulder width suitable for emergency lane

No

3.2.5 Inner shoulder Redresseerstrook

Yes Accidental exit Trajectory correction

0.75m-2m None 2.2.c ARP

3.2.6 Median separation Middenbermscheiding

Yes No None 2.2.d ARP

3.2.7 Turnouts,safety zones Pechhavens

No

3.2.8 Surfacing Verharding

No

3.2.9 Road markings Markering

Indirect

3.3 Roadside Wegberm

3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones Obstakelvrije zone

Yes No 4m,7m, 8.5m None 2.2.c

3.3.2 Type of Obstacle Obstakeltype

Yes No 2.2.c

3.3.3 Soft shoulders Onverharde berm

Yes

64


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source


Yes Ch 2 ARP

3.3.4 Slopes Talud

Indirect 3.2.4 & 5.2 ARP

3.3.5 Drainage channels

Yes Weathering Stagnation

5.2 ARP

3.4 Secondary lanes Parallelrijbaan/-strook

3.4.1 Cycle lane Fietspad

Yes No 1.5.g ARP

3.4.2 General Algemeen

3.4.3 Pedestrian sidewalk

Yes Protect pedestrians 1.5.h ARP

3.4.4 Bus stops bays

Yes Protect : Pedestrians, drivers

1.5.f ARP

3.5 Access control

3.5.1 Frontage roads

Yes No 1.1.a ARP

3.6 Tunnels

No

65

4 INTERSECTIONS KRUISPUNTEN

In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?


Zijn gevolgen voor veiligheid bij afwijking

genoemd? Are the effects of deviating from the


Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

4.1 Intersection types Kruispunttypen

4.1.1 Number of arms Aantal takken

No

4.1.2 Traffic control mode Regelingstype

Yes No 5.1 ARP

4.1.3 Traffic conflict countermeasures for motor vehicles Maatregelen om conflicten te vermijden voor motorvoertuigen

Indirect No 5.3 ARP

4.1.4 Traffic conflict countermeasures for vulnerable road users Idem voor langzaam verkeer

No

4.2 Use of design templates Ontwerpvoorschriften

Yes No 5.3.a ARP

4.3 Design principles Ontwerpprincipes

Yes No Ch 5 ARP

4.4 Traffic safety records for intersection types Ongevallengegevens per kruispunttype

No

4.5 Intersection between a distributor (high level) and a local road Kruispunten GOW-ETW

4.5.1 3- and 4-way Drie- en viertaks

Yes Yes 5.3.d ARP

4.5.2 Priority control mode Voorrangsregeling

Yes Yes 5.3c & 5.3.d ARP

4.5.3 Minor road channelization Rijbaansplitsing op zijweg

Yes Yes 5.3.c ARP

4.5.4 Major road left turn lanes Linksafstroken op hoofdweg

Yes Yes 5.3 ARP

4.5.5 Right turn lanes Rechtsafstroken

Yes Yes 5.3 ARP

66


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source



No


Yes No 5.1 ARP


Indirect No 5.3 ARP


No

4.5.6 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Voorzieningen voetgangers en fietsers

Indirect No 5.5 ARP

4.5.7 Local speed limits Plaatselijke snelheidslimiet

No

4.5.8 Crossing sight distance requirements Zichtafstanden


4.6 Intersection between two distributor (high level) roads Kruispunten GOW-GOW

4.6.1 X or Y intersection Yes No None 5.2 ARP 4.6.2 Roundabout

Rotondes

4.6.2.1 Use Verwacht gebruik

Yes No None 5.4 ARP

4.6.2.2 Shape and layout (refers to whather it is a traditional t or X or some deviation) Vorm en ontwerp

No

4.6.2.3 Crossing sight distance requirements Zichtdriehoeken


67


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source



No


Yes No 5.1 ARP


Indirect No 5.3 ARP


No

4.6.2.4 Bicycle facilities Fietsvoorzieningen

No

4.6.3 Traffic signals Verkeerslichten

No

4.6.4 Grade separation Ongelijkvloers

Indirect Ref instructions of urban roundabout

None 5.4 ARP

68

8.2.2 interurban dual carriageway motorways: items mentioned and rating

Rating team:………………………………… Country: TUNISIA Guidelines assessed: - ICTAAL - Note d’information SETRA 2008, vitesse V85 - ICTAVRU (Instruction sur les Conditions Techniques d’Aménagement des Voies Rapides Urbaines)


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source


1.1.1 Design speed approach Uitgangspunt ontwerpsnelheid

Yes No V85é Real Speed ICTAAL 1.2 Note SETRA 2006

1.1.2 Speed limit approach Uitgangspunt snelheidslimiet

Yes No 130 110

None ICTAAL 1.2 Note SETRA 2006

1.1.3 Actual speed approach Uitgangspunt feitelijke snelheid

Yes No V85 Real Speed ICTAAL 2.1.1

1.2 Reaction time Reactietijd

Yes No 2s None ICTAAL Annexe 1

1.3 Eye position and object position Positie van oog en object

1.3.1 Eye height Ooghoogte

Yes No 1m None ICTAAL 2.1.2

1.3.2 Lateral eye position Laterale oogpositie


1.3.3 Object height Objecthoogte

Yes No 0.60m None ICTAAL 2.1.3

1.3.4 Lateral object position Laterale objectpositie

Yes No 1m 2.50m

None ICTAAL 2.1.3

1.4 Friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt

69


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt in lengterichting

No

1.4.2 Side friction coefficient Wrijvingscoëfficiënt in dwarsrichting

No

1.5 Vehicle deceleration and acceleration Vertraging en versnelling van het voertuig

1.5.1 Deceleration vertraging

Yes No (v) 1.5m/s

None ICTAAL 5.2.6 & A.1

1.5.2 Acceleration Versnelling

Yes No 1m/s None ICTAAL 5.2.6

1.6 Action distances Benodigde minimale afstand

1.6.1 Stopping distance Stopafstand

Yes Anticpate occurent event

da None ICTAAL A.1

1.6.2 Overtaking distance Inhaalafstand

No

1.7 Sight distance Zichtafstanden

1.7.1 Stopping sight distance Stopzicht

Yes Anticpate occurent event

dms None ICTAAL A.1

1.7.2 Meeting sight distance Zichtafstand bolle boog

No

1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance Inhaalzicht

No

1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance Zicht om inhalen af te breken

No

1.7.5 Crossing sight distance Stopzicht bij kruispunt

No

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics Ontwerpvoertuigkenmerken

No

1.9 Clearances verkeersruimte

1.9.1 Dimensions Afmetingen

Yes No 3.5m None ICTAAL 4.1.1

70


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

1.9.2 Swept path Baanverbreding

Yes No ICTAAL 1.6.1

1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances Profiel van vrije ruimte

Yes No 4.75m None ICTAAL 4.3

1.9.4 Safety distances Objectafstanden

No

1.9.5 Dynamic lateral clearance Profiel van ruimte

Yes No 10 8.5

None ICTAAL 4.1.3

1.10 Road image (Rhol=2to7*RBol) Wegbeeld (Rhol=2tot7*RBol)

Yes No ICTAAL 2.3

1.11 Recommendations for mitigating barrier effect impacts.


Annex Road lighting Openbare verlichting

Yes No ICTAAL 7.1.7

71


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

2.2 Horizontal alignment Horizontaal alignement

2.2.1 Principles Principes

Yes No None ICTAAL ch 3

2.2.2 Straight sections and large radius curves Rechte wegvakken en bogen met grote boogstraal

Yes No None ICTAAL 3.1.1 & 3.2.2

2.2.3 Curves Bogen

2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended Te vermijden boogstralen

Indirect No None ICTAAL 3.1.1

2.2.3.2 Super elevation Verkanting

Yes No 2.5% None ICTAAL 4.6

2.2.3.3 Minimum radius Minimum boogstraal

Yes No 1 000 600

None ICTAAL 3.1.1

2.2.4 Rules for linking alignment elements Regels om rechte wegvakken en bogen met elkaar te verbinden

2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section Boog na een lang recht wegvak

Yes No None ICTAAL 3.1.2

2.2.4.2 Compatibility of two successive curves Compatibiliteit van twee opeenvolgende bogen

Yes No None ICTAAL 3.1.2, 5.2.2 & 9.2.1

2.2.4.3 Transition curves Overgangsbogen

Yes No Min (14, R/9) None ICTAAL 3.1.1 & 3.2.2

2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend Gebreken binnen een boog

No

2.2.4.5 Design consistency

Yes No None ICTAAL 3.1

2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads Aanpak voor verbeteringen

Yes No None ICTAAL 1.6 & 9

72


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

2.3 Vertical alignment Verticaal alignement

2.3.1 Gradient Hellingshoek

Yes No 5% 6%

None ICTAAL 3.2.1

2.3.2 Vertical connecting curves Vorm van verticale boog

2.3.2.1 Convex curves Bolle boog

Yes No 4 200 3 000

None ICTAAL 3.2.1

2.3.2.2 Concave curves Holle boog

Yes No 12 500 6 000

None ICTAAL 3.2.1

2.3.3 Climbing lanes Kruipstrook

2.3.3.1 Passing/Overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4)




2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads Aanpak voor verbeteringen

Yes No None ICTAAL 9


2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing


2.3.5.2 Type and length


2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking


2.4 Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments Aaneensluiting van horizontale en verticale elementen


73


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

3.1.1 Relationship curve radius / superlevation / speed Relatie boogstraal/afschot/snelheid

Yes No 2.5 % → 7% None ICTAAL 4.6.2 & 4.6.3

3.1.2 Superelevation (transition type / length) Verkanting (overgang/lengte)

Yes No 14 │∆│ None ICTAAL 4.6.2 & 3.1.3 & 4.6.3



3.2 Main carriageway hoofdrijbaan

3.2.1 Road Width Verhardingsbreedte

Yes No 3.5 m None ICTAAL 4.1.1

3.2.2 Running lanes Rijstroken

No

3.2.2.1 Lane width vs. design speed

No

3.2.3 Crossfall Afschot

No

3.2.4 Hard shoulders Vluchtstrook

3.2.4.1 Outside shoulder width suitable for emergency lane

Yes No 2.5 m 3 m

None ICTAAL 4.1.3 (b)

3.2.5 Inner shoulder Redresseerstrook

Yes No 1,00 m None ICTAAL 4.1.2 (a)

3.2.6 Central reservation Middenberm

Yes No None ICTAAL 4.1.12 (b)

3.2.7 Median separation Middenbermscheiding

Yes No None ICTAAL 7.1.1 (a)

3.2.8 Turnouts,safety zones Pechhavens


3.2.9 Surfacing Verharding

No

3.2.10 Road markings Markering

No

74


In HWO?

In guidelines?





waarde?





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

3.3 Roadside Wegberm

3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones Obstakelvrije zone

Yes No 10 m 8.5 m

None ICTAAL 4.1.3

3.3.2 Type of Obstacle Obstakeltype


3.3.3 Soft shoulders Onverharde berm

Yes Yes None ICTAAL 4.1.3

3.3.4 Slopes Talud

Yes No D > 70 % R < 4 m

None ICTAAL 4.1.3

3.3.5 Drainage channels

Yes No CAO, fossé 50cm None ICTAAL 4.1.3

3.4 Auxiliary lanes (e.g. bus lanes) Verharde bermen of rijstroken voor langzaam gemotoriseerd verkeer

Yes No VSVL None ICTAAL 4.4.5

3.5 Recommended cross-sections Aanbevolen dwarsprofielen


3.6 Access control

Yes No None ICTAAL 5.2 & 7.2.3

3.7 Tunnels

No

3.8 Secondary lanes Parallel rijbaan/strook

3.8.1 General Algemeen

Yes No None ICTAAL ch 7

3.8.2 Frontage roads

No

3.8.3 Rest and service areas

Yes 30 km 60 km

None ICTAAL 7.4

75

4 INTERCHANGE In HWO?

In guidelines?




Wat is aangenomen of gekozen als waarde?

What is the

assumed/adopted parameter value




Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source

4.1 Interchange and Ramp Spacing

4.1.1 Minimum value for spacing distance? Yes No 20 km None ICTAAL 1.4 4.1.2 Minimum value for distance between

successive entrances and exits? Yes No > 1200 m

< 750 m None ICTAAL 5.3


4.2.1 Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway through the interchange area

No

4.2.2 Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area

No

4.2.3 Sight distance requirement in advance of each exit (desirably decision sight distance)

Yes No dms None ICTAAL 2.2.2

4.3 Interchange Configurations

4.3.1 Differenciation between “service interchange” (between motorway and other road) and “system interchange” (between motorways)

Yes No None ICTAAL Ch 5

4.3.1.1 An appropriate array of interchange configurations and variations must be evaluated in the design study phase


4.3.2 Interchange configuration appropriate for the operational needs, fits the topography and potential site conditions and constraints,

4.3.2.1 Requirements for consistency in exit pattern with other nearby interchanges

No

76


In guidelines?





What is the





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source






4.3.3 Requirement for completeness of directional traffic movements provision


4.3.4 Manadtory installation of all exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?

Yes No None ICTAAL 5.1 & 5.2.6

4.3.5 Provisions for weaving weaving section design?


4.3.5.1 Distance between the physical merge and exit nose?

Yes No 150 m None ICTAAL 5.2.6

4.3.6 Location of crossroad in the interchange

No

4.3.6.1 Over the freeway

No

4.3.7 Route Continuity

4.3.7.1 Priority route is the through facility


4.4 Ramp Design

4.4.1 Design speed of the ramp ≥50% of the mainline design speed

Yes 60 km/h None ICTAAL Annexe 2

4.4.2 Length for acceleration at entrance ramps

Yes 200 m+ 75 m None ICTAAL 5.2.2

4.4.3 Length for deceleration at exit ramps?

Yes 150 m None ICTAAL 5.2.6

4.4.4 Balanced number of exit and entrance?

No

77


In guidelines?





What is the





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source






4.5 Crossroad Design

4.5.1 Sidewalks and bicyclist facilities provided along the interchange crossroad. (Pedestrians and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to high speed approach vehicles turning at ramp terminals).

No

4.5.1.1 Traffic control at the crossings at interchange ramps (Y or N)

No

4.5.2 Length of access control along the crossroad beyond the interchange, to ensure its integrity (A minimum of 30m in urban areas and 100m in rural areas is usually insufficient where additional development is likely).

No

4.5.3 Land development and access management measures are in place for the interchange area (Y or N)

No

4.5.4 Design criteria for ramp/crossroad intersection

4.5.4.1 Turning radii for design vehicle

No

4.5.4.2 Capacity

Yes No 1800 UVP None ICTAAL 1.3.3

78


In guidelines?





What is the





Aard onderbouwing


relationship

Source






4.5.4.3 Traffic control

No

4.5.4.4 Channelization


4.5.4.5 Intersection sight distance

Yes No Visibility rules and layouts ICTAAL 5.2.6

79

8.3 Scoring and prioritising

8.3.1 Single carriageway roads

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS A B C DSafety effect


Are the effects of deviating from the

norm on safety mentioned/described Total score % Weighted

BASISCRITERIARelevant to

safety




safety


D=AxBxCIn guidelines?

Total exfxg

(small to large: 1-3) (1-3)Very low to very high

Yes=1, No=2 Yes=1; No=2

No=3; Yes, quanlitative=2; Yes, quantitative=3 Score (Max=12)

1-3)

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics 3 3 3 27 2 2 3 12 39 100,00 100,00 1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.4.2 Side friction coefficient 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.5.1 Deceleration 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.9.4 Safety distances 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances 3 3 3 27 1 2 3 6 33 84,62 75,00 1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance 2 2 3 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 1.6.1 Stopping distance 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.7.1 Stopping sight distance 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.7.2 Meeting sight distance 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.9.1 Dimensions 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.9.2 Swept path 2 3 3 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.5.2 Acceleration 1 2 2 4 2 2 3 12 16 41,03 57,41 1.1.2 Speed limit approach 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 1.3.3 Object height 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 1.3.4 Lateral object position 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 Annex Road lighting 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 1.1.3 Actual speed approach 3 3 1 9 1 2 3 6 15 38,46 41,67 1.3.2 Lateral eye position 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 1.6.2 Overtaking distance 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 1.2 Reaction time 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.7.5 Crossing sight distance 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.3.1 Eye height 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 1.1.1 Design speed approach 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 6 9 23,08 30,56 2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking 3 2 3 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing 2 3 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 2.3.5.2 Type and length 2 3 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.3.2 Super elevation 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 12 15 38,46 55,56 2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.4.2 Compatibility of two successive curves 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.4.3 Transition curves 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.4.5 Design consistency 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.3.3 Minimum radius 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 2.3.2.1 Convex curves 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 2.3.1 Gradient 2 3 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72

2.3.3.2Auxiliary (climbing or passing) lane suppression: type and length of drop

3 2 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72 2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 6 9 23,08 30,56 2.4 Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments 2 3 2 12 1 1 2 2 14 35,90 30,56 2.3.3.1 Passing/overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4) 2 2 2 8 1 1 3 3 11 28,21 27,31 2.2.1 Principles 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 7 17,95 26,85 2.3.2.2 Concave curves 1 3 2 6 1 1 3 3 9 23,08 23,61 2.2.2 Straight sections and large radius curves 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 10,26 14,35 3.2.8 Surfacing 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 3.2.3 Crossfall 2 3 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 3.6 Tunnels 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81 3.2.2.1 Lane width vs design speed 1 3 2 6 2 2 3 12 18 46,15 61,11 3.4.1 Cycle lane 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.4.2 General 2 1 2 4 2 2 3 12 16 41,03 57,41 3.2.7 Turnouts,safety zones 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 12 14 35,90 53,70 3.2.1 Road Width 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.2.9 Road markings 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.4.3 Pedestrian sidewalk 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 3.4.4 Bus stops bays 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 3.3.4 Slopes 1 3 3 9 1 2 3 6 15 38,46 41,67 3.1.3 Integrated design 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 3.5.1 Frontage roads 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 3.3.2 Type of Obstacle 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 3.3.3 Soft shoulders 1 3 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 3.2.4.1 Shoulder width suitable for emergency lane 2 1 2 4 2 1 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.2.6 Median separation 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.2.5 Inner shoulder 1 3 2 6 1 1 3 3 9 23,08 23,61 3.3.5 Drainage channels 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 3 7 17,95 19,91 4.4 Traffic safety records for intersection types 2 3 3 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 4.5.7 Local speed limits 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 4.1.1 Number of arms 2 3 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 4.6.2.4 Bicycle facilities 3 2 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 4.6.3 Traffic signals 3 2 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 4.1.4 Traffic conflict countermeasures for vulnerable road users 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81

4.6.2.2Shape and layout (refers to whather it is a traditional t or X or some deviation)

2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81

4.2 Use of design templates 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.3 Design principles 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.5.6 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.6.2.3 Crossing sight distance requirements 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.1.2 Traffic control mode 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 4.5.4 Major road left turn lanes 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 4.1.3 Traffic conflict countermeasures for motor vehicles 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 4.5.8 Crossing sight distance requirements 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 4.6.1 X or Y intersection 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 4.6.2.1 Use 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 4.6.4 Grade separation 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 4.5.1 3- and 4-way 2 3 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72 4.5.2 Priority control mode 3 2 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72 4.5.5 Right turn lanes 2 3 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72 4.5.3 Minor road channelization 2 2 2 8 1 1 3 3 11 28,21 27,31

80

8.3.2 Dual carriageway roads


Safety effect mentioned?, If so,

how big

Are the effects of deviating from the

norm on safety mentioned/described Total score % Weighted

BASISCRITERIARelevant to

safety




safety


D=AxBxCIn guidelines?

Total exfxg

(small to large: 1-3) (1-3)Very low to very high

Yes=1, No=2 Yes=1; No=2

No=3; Yes, quanlitative=2; Yes, quantitative=3 Score (Max=12)

1-3)

1.8 Design vehicle characteristics 3 3 3 27 2 2 3 12 39 100,00 100,00 1.4.1 Longitudinal friction coefficient 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.4.2 Side friction coefficient 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.7.5 Crossing sight distance 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.9.4 Safety distances 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 1.7.3 Overtaking sight distance 1 3 3 9 2 2 3 12 21 53,85 66,67 1.7.4 Abort overtaking sight distance 1 3 3 9 2 2 3 12 21 53,85 66,67 1.7.2 Meeting sight distance 1 3 2 6 2 2 3 12 18 46,15 61,11 1.5.1 Deceleration 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.9.1 Dimensions 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.9.2 Swept path 2 3 3 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 1.1.2 Speed limit approach 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 1.9.3 Overhead and lateral clearances 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 1.9.5 Dynamic lateral clearance 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 1.6.1 Stopping distance 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 1.7.1 Stopping sight distance 3 3 2 18 1 1 3 3 21 53,85 45,83 1.1.3 Actual speed approach 3 3 1 9 1 2 3 6 15 38,46 41,67 1.3.2 Lateral eye position 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 1.5.2 Acceleration 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 1.2 Reaction time 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.3.3 Object height 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.3.4 Lateral object position 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.10 Road image (Rhol=2to7*RBol) 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 1.3.1 Eye height 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 1.1.1 Design speed approach 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 6 9 23,08 30,56 Annex Road lighting 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 6 9 23,08 30,56 1.6.2 Overtaking distance 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 6 8 20,51 28,70 1.11 Recommendations for mitigating barrier effect impacts. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 7 17,95 26,85 2.2.3.1 Radii not recommended 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.3.2 Super elevation 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.3.3 Minimum radius 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.4.1 Curve following a straight section 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.4.2 Compatibility of two successive curves 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.3.2.1 Convex curves 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.3.5.1 Warrants and spacing 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 2.2.4.4 Internal defects of a bend 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 12 15 38,46 55,56 2.2.2 Straight sections and large radius curves 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.4.3 Transition curves 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.2.4.5 Design consistency 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.3.1 Gradient 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.3.3.2

Auxiliary (climbing or passing) lane suppression: type and length of drop

2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22

2.3.4 Improvement of existing roads 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.3.5.2 Type and length 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.4 Coordination of horizontal and vertical alignments 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 2.3.3.1 Passing/Overtaking lanes (old 3.2.4) 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 2.3.2.2 Concave curves 1 3 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 2.2.1 Principles 2 2 1 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 2.3.5.3 Stop areas for brake checking 1 2 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 2.2.5 Project planning to improve existing roads 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 6 9 23,08 30,56 3.2.9 Surfacing 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 3.2.10 Road markings 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 3.7 Tunnels 3 2 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 3.2.2.1 Lane width vs. design speed 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81 3.2.3 Crossfall 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.1.1 Relationship curve radius / superlevation / speed 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.2.6 Central reservation 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.3.1 Obstacle-free zones 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.4 Auxiliary lanes (e.g. bus lanes) 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.6 Access control 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 3.8.2 Frontage roads 2 1 2 4 2 2 3 12 16 41,03 57,41 3.2.1 Road Width 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.2.4.1 Outside shoulder width suitable for emergency lane 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.2.7 Median separation 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.2.8 Turnouts,safety zones 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.8.3 Rest and service areas 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 3.3.4 Slopes 1 3 3 9 1 2 3 6 15 38,46 41,67 3.1.3 Integrated design 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 3.3.2 Type of Obstacle 3 1 2 6 1 2 3 6 12 30,77 36,11 3.3.3 Soft shoulders 2 3 2 12 1 1 3 3 15 38,46 34,72 3.1.2 Superelevation (transition type / length) 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.2.5 Inner shoulder 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.3.5 Drainage channels 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.5 Recommended cross-sections 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41 3.8.1 General 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 6 8 20,51 28,70

4.2.1Maximum absolute value for the grade of the freeway through the interchange area

3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33

4.2.2Minimum value for horizontal curvature throughout the interchange area

3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 4.5.4.1 Turning radii for design vehicle 3 3 2 18 2 2 3 12 30 76,92 83,33 4.5.2

Length of access control along the crossroad beyond the interchange, to ensure its integrity

2 3 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22

4.5.3Land development and access management measures are in place for the interchange area (Y or N)

3 2 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 4.5.4.3 Traffic control 3 2 2 12 2 2 3 12 24 61,54 72,22 4.3.2.1

Requirements for consistency in exit pattern with other nearby interchanges

2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81

4.3.6.1 Over the freeway 2 2 2 8 2 2 3 12 20 51,28 64,81 4.4.1

Design speed of the ramp ≥50% of the mainline design speed

3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33

4.2.3Sight distance requirement in advance of each exit (desirably decision sight distance)

3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.3.5.1 Distance between the physical merge and exit nose? 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.4.2 Length for acceleration at entrance ramps 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.4.3 Length for deceleration at exit ramps? 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.5.4.2 Capacity 3 3 2 18 1 2 3 6 24 61,54 58,33 4.4.4 Balanced number of exit and entrance? 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 12 14 35,90 53,70 4.5.1.1

Traffic control at the crossings at interchange ramps (Y or N)

1 1 2 2 2 2 3 12 14 35,90 53,70 4.1.1 Minimum value for spacing distance? 2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 4.1.2

Minimum value for distance between successive entrances and exits?

2 3 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22

4.3.4Manadtory installation of all exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?

3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22

4.5.4.5 Intersection sight distance 3 2 2 12 1 2 3 6 18 46,15 47,22 4.3.7.1 Priority route is the through facility 3 1 3 9 1 2 3 6 15 38,46 41,67 4.5.4.4 Channelization 2 2 2 8 1 2 3 6 14 35,90 39,81 4.3.1.1

An appropriate array of interchange configurations and variations must be evaluated in the design study phase

2 1 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41

4.3.3Requirement for completeness of directional traffic movements provision

1 2 2 4 1 2 3 6 10 25,64 32,41

1

sa task5.5 tunisia final 5sept - saferafrica · sa task5.5 tunisia final 5sept - saferafrica ... 1...

Documents