June Presentation Title. Peter Daly RACV. Presenter s Name

Transcription

1 June Presentation Title Peter Daly RACV Presenter s Name

2 Overview What AusRAP is and isn t What it is trying to achieve How it works Key results Future directions

3 What is AusRAP? Sister program to ANCAP Part of irap

4 What is AusRAP? usrap EuroRAP Costa Rica Malaysia & Vietnam Chile South Africa AusRAP KiwiRAP

5 What is AusRAP? Language for dialogue about safer roads

6 Public concept of a dangerous road %& %'!"# $" Source: ANOP, 2007

7 A safe system: Safer drivers in safer cars on safer roads

8 What AusRAP is not AusRAP is not: a road management tool a prioritisation method.and has no interest in intruding on road authority operations

9 What AusRAP is trying to achieve Community: Community pressure for safer roads Raised awareness of risk Adapt road user behaviour and better understand need for laws Governments, authorities, planners and engineers: Makes the business case for road improvements Rising road standards can be tracked Assisting in decision-making about road investments Overall performance of a particular road can be compared to others Engage in discussion about technical standards

10 How AusRAP works Twin protocols Risk mapping Collective risk Individual risk See Star ratings

11 Star Ratings One to five stars measuring the safety that is built-in to the road Based on assessment of road design elements Enables sections of road that are likely to be risky to be identified before a crash occurs E.g. some jurisdictions report more than half of fatal crashes occurred where there had been no other injury crashes in the previous 4 years Measures likelihood and severity Method developed with ARRB Consulting

12 How is the data collected?

13 What elements are inspected? For run-off road and head-on crashes: road type lane width sealed shoulder width horizontal alignment terrain line marking roadside hazards speed environment overtaking provision

14 What elements are inspected? For intersection crashes: type of intersection volume of traffic on side road (or railway) speed environment alignment of side roads (or railway) sight distances right and left turn provision

15 Road Protection Score (RPS) Star-ratings are based on a RPS Crash risk score can be assigned to each of the road s design elements Based on over 10 years of ARRB and AustRoads research Eg: crash risk on road with narrow lanes (<2.8m) 50% higher than wide lanes (3.6m) RPS combines these scores to form a star-rating

16 Road Protection Score (RPS) worm Overall RPS Plus Run off road Head-on Intersection

17 Star Ratings Rating Scale Divided Road Straight with good line-marking, wide lanes and sealed shoulders, safe roadsides and occasional over- or under-pass intersections. Minor deficiencies in some road features such as lane width, shoulder width, roadside or roadsides. Major deficiencies in some road features such as poor median protection against head-on crashes, many minor deficiencies and/or poorly designed intersections at regular intervals. Typical road Undivided Road No undivided roads can achieve a 5-star rating. Straight with good overtaking provision, good line-marking and safe roadsides. Minor deficiencies in some road features such as alignment and roadsides and/or poorly designed intersections at regular intervals.

18 Star Ratings Rating Scale Divided Road Typical road Undivided Road Many major deficiencies such as poor alignment, poor roadsides and median protection and poorly designed intersections at regular intersections. Poor alignment, in mountainous terrain, narrow lanes and shoulders, severe roadside conditions and many major intersections. Major deficiencies in some road features such as poor roadsides and/or many minor deficiencies such as insufficient overtaking provision and narrow lanes, and/or poorly designed intersections at regular intervals intersections. Poor alignment, in mountainous terrain, narrow lanes and sealed shoulders, poor line marking and severe roadside conditions.

19 Pyrenees Highway Severe roadside Narrow sealed shoulders Undivided Undivided

20 Mallee Hwy Straight Moderate roadside Narrow sealed shoulders Good lines Undivided

21 Calder Fwy Some at-grade intersections and roadside issues Straight Clear roadside Good overtaking Good lines Wide shoulders Wide lanes Divided but no barriers to prevent a head-on

22 AusRAP Star Ratings AusLink National Network * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0% 42% 55% 3% 0%

23

24 Hume Fwy Moderate to severe roadside 29% Moderate roadside 83% Moderate to severe roadside 59% Moderate to narrow lane widths ( m) 22% Moderate to severe roadside 67% Moderate to severe roadside 27%

25 Goulburn Valley Hwy Undivided Moderate to Poor overtaking 78% Severe roadside for 21% of length Moderate roadside 40% Undivided Moderate to severe roadside 40% Moderate to narrow lane widths ( m) Moderate to severe roadside 50% Moderate to severe roadside 30% Moderate to narrow lane widths ( m) Moderate to severe roadside 45% Undivided Narrow to no sealed shoulder 25% Poor horizontal alignment 36% Severe roadside 40%

26 Recognising improvements Infrastructure improvements do show up But depends on scale Worm/detailed results Maps aggregated for communications purposes Sensitivity analysis shows 5 star eminently achievable ANCAP Design standards

27 Calder Hwy, Ravenswood case study Rated 2 stars in 2006 New carriageway $30 million upgrade Now rates 4 stars Divided 50% safe roadside Good alignment 80% Original road Old carriageway modified

28 Benefits to the community Investment in infrastructure pays community dividends but not all roads should be 5-star role of speed limits Crash cost (cents per kilometre) Crash costs halved Star rating Crash costs halved again 3

29 Future direction 2008/09 Re-rate highways with major improvements Investment for a 4-star network Update website google earth Ongoing research program International EuroRAP / irap Vietnam RAP

30 Future direction Questions?