UNESCAP 1
UNESCAP 1. Introduction 2. Target Road Safety Facility 3. Guideline/Manual for RSF 4. Survey Design and Application Plan 5. Discussion and Remark 2
Background - The AH project was initiated by the United Nations in 1959 with the aim of promoting the development of international road transport - 32 countries, 55 routes, 140,000km - Huge amount of budget, human resource and international agreements are required - Are we ready to open the traffic? UNESCAP 3
Background UNESCAP 4
Background Number of road traffic deaths 2010 Number of road traffic deaths Number of road traffic deaths per 100,000 population RoK DPRK China Thailand Bangladesh India 6,784 2,614 275,983 26,312 17,289 231,027 14.1 10.7 20.5 38.1 11.6 18.9 Societal crash cost for a fatality is $5,800,000 (FHWA, 2008) UNESCAP 5
Background - Up to 34% of crashes can be reduced by improving of the environment factors - Road safety facility can make up for the defect of roadway environment - Every country has different roadway environment and different type of facilities - In order to make it upward leveling, technical standard of road safety facility is required UNESCAP 6
Purpose Development of the Technical Standards on the Road Safety Facilities (RSF) to share in the AH 1 & 6 Enhancement of the traffic safety level in the region INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON THE ASIAN HIGHWAY NETWORK Annex II III. DESIGN STANDARDS OF ASIAN HIGHWAY ROUTES 10. Road safety While developing the Asian Highway network, Parties shall give full consideration to issues of road safety. Make this article detail and prepare effectual action plan UNESCAP 7
Research group Korea expressway corporation UN-ESCAP Director Dr. Cho, sungmin michael Dr. Yuwei Li Researcher Dr. Kim, ducknyung Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed National experts for 6 countries International consultant - Dr. Greg smith (i-rap) - Prof. Lee, Seongkwan Mark (King Saud university) National consultant - Prof. Seo, wonho (Hanyang university) - Prof. Park, shinhyung (Kyemyung university) - Prof. Kim, dong-kyu (Seoul national university) UNESCAP 8
Road Status of 6 countries Description Pavement Type Primary Class I Class II Class III Access-controlled Highways 4 or more lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes Asphalt or Cement Concrete Double Bituminous Treatment Design Speed (km/hr) 120~60 100~50 80~40 60~30 Lane Width(m) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0~3.25 Structural Loading (minimum) HS20-44 Country Primary Class I Class II Class III Below Class III Other Total (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) (km) Bangladesh 0 72.00 1,553.00 94.00 22.00 0 1,740.00 China 7,271.74 1,068.12 3,082.15 547.94 4.49 0 11,974.45 DPRK 0 492.00 15.00 0 220.00 735.00 1,462.00 India 90.00 4,069.00 1,675.00 5,699.00 117.00 160.00 11,810.00 Republic of Korea 457.00 309.00 72.00 0 0 0 838.00 Thailand 182.00 3,049.00 1,723.00 155.00 2.00 0 5,111.00 UNESCAP 9
Good examples for RSF 1 2 3 4 UNESCAP 10
Bad examples for RSF 1 2 3 4 UNESCAP 11
Road Safety Facility (RSF) - Remove or redesign the obstacle - Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less likely to be struck - Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal traffic barrier designed for redirection or use a crash cushion to reduce impact severity - Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives are not appropriate UNESCAP 12
Target Road Safety Facility (candidate) -exclude Road signs & traffic signal A. Delineation system B. Barrier system C. Pavement system D. Electronic signal system E. Speed regulation / control system F. Facility for crash UNESCAP 13
A. Delineation System Delineation system Delineator Chevron alignment sign Raised pavement marker Delineator post Color lane Reflection mirror Reflect type LED type Reflect type LED type UNESCAP 14
A. Delineation System Chevron sign Delineator UNESCAP 15
B. Barrier system Barrier system Median barrier Roadside barrier Protect head light Rigid type Semi-rigid type Flexible type Rigid type Semi-rigid type Flexible type UNESCAP 16
B. Barrier system Simi-rigid type of median End treatment Protect head light UNESCAP 17
C. Pavement system D. Electronic signal system Pavement system Anti-skid pavement Rumble strip Electronic signal system Material addition Material remove(gr ooving) Variable message sign LED warding sign Lane control sign Variable speed limit UNESCAP 18
C. Pavement system Anti-skid pavement Anti-skid pavement (Grooving) UNESCAP 19
D. Electronic signal system Variable Message Sign (VMS) Variable Speed Limit (VSL) LED warning sign UNESCAP 20
E. Speed Reg/Ctr system Speed Reg/Ctr system Fixed type camera Mobile type camera Section type camera Speed hump F. Facility for crash Facility for crash Crash cushion End treatment Emergency stop facility Emergency call UNESCAP 21
E. Speed Reg/Ctr system Speed regulation camera (fixed type) Speed regulation camera (mobile type) UNESCAP 22
F. Facility for crash Crash cushion End treatment Channelization End treatment Emergency Call UNESCAP 23
Korean manual/guidelines : Guidelines on the installation and maintenance of a road safety facility (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Korea) Volume 1 : Delineation system - Delineator, Chevron alignment sign, Raised pavement marker, Sign for obstacles and Delineator post Volume 2 : Barrier system - Barrier fence, Crash cushion, End treatment and Transition Volume 3 : Rumble strip - Milled, Rolled, Formed and Raised type Volume 4 : Other road safety facility - Lighting, Anti-skid facility, Anti-speeding facility, Reflect mirror and emergency stop facility UNESCAP 24
International manual/guidelines : Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (AASHTO, 2009) - NCHRP report 350 - NCHRP report 230 Road restraint systems (EU, 2010~2012) - EN 1317-1 ~ EN 1317-5 - TD 49/07, Design manual for roads and bridges, etc (2007) RISER Project (EU, 2003~2006) Guidelines on the Installation and Maintenance of a Road Safety Facility (MLIT, 2012 Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO, 2011) 設計要領第五集 ( 交通安全施設編 ) ( 東 / 中 / 西日本高速道路株式會社, 2006) UNESCAP 25
Case study : MEDIAN BARRIER Definition Primary purpose is to prevent errant vehicles from crossing a median and becoming involved in a potentially serious collision in the opposing lane of traffic Median barriers are used to separate through traffic from local traffic They may also be used to separate high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes from general purpose lanes UNESCAP 26
Case study(mash) : MEDIAN BARRIER UNESCAP 27
Case study : MEDIAN BARRIER Three categories Flexible : weak post W-beam guardrail systems and 3-strand cable systems Semi-rigid : strong post blocked-out W/three-beam systems Rigid : concrete barrier systems Performance level selection High percentage or large average daily number of heavy vehicles Adverse geometrics (horizontal curvature) Severe consequences of vehicular (or cargo) penetration into opposing traffic lanes UNESCAP 28
Case study : MEDIAN BARRIER Rigid Type Median Barriers Concrete safety-shape median barrier (TL-4 for 810mm, TL-5 for 1070mm) Single-slope concrete median barrier (TL-4 for 810mm, TL-5 for 1070mm) UNESCAP 29
Case study : MEDIAN BARRIER Semi-rigid Type Median Barriers Box-beam median barrier (DDD: 1.7m, TL-3) Strong post W-beam median barrier (DDD: 0.6~1.2m, TL-2 & TL-3) Modified three-beam median barrier (DDD: 0.3~0.9m, TL-4) UNESCAP 30
Case study : MEDIAN BARRIER Flexible Type Median Barriers Weak-post, W-beam median barrier (Design Deflection Distance: 2.1m, TL-2) Three-strand cable (DDD: 3.5m, TL-3) UNESCAP 31
Part 1 : Existing status of RSF for 6 countries Purpose To answer WHAT kind of road safety facility should be installed Application plan Technical consulting Survey complete Investigate existing status Match up with roadway class Set the target for RSF National expert UNESCAP 32
Part 1 : Existing status of RSF for 6 countries Survey design Fill this form out with O / X UNESCAP 33
Part 1 : Existing status of RSF for 6 countries Class Ⅲ Simple separation for traffic flow Class Ⅱ Median Flexible type Roadside barrier Flexible type Class Ⅰ Median Rigid type Rumble strip Chevron sign Roadside barrier Rigid type 80 Primary VSL LCS Delineator LED type Spot flex Chevron sign LED type UNESCAP 34
Part 2 : Investigation of guidelines/manual for RSF Purpose To answer WHERE/WHEN suggested RSF should be installed Application plan Technical consulting Survey complete Review guidelines/manuals for each countries Review international guidelines/manuals Set the technical standard for RSF National expert Literature review UNESCAP 35
Part 2 : Investigation of guidelines/manual for RSF UNESCAP 36
To answer WHAT County Primary Class III. RoK China. Classification Minimum Requirements Mandatory facilities Optional facilities UNESCAP 37
To answer WHAT - Suggested result is oriented by survey performed by national expert - Prepare the PLAN B if collected data is insufficient - Support from the quantitative safety leveling program (e.g. star rating) Source : The Korea Transport institute UNESCAP 38
To answer WHERE / WHEN - Collect and compare manual/guidelines for each countries - Possibility that some country have no manuals/guidelines - PLAN B : review manual that already published (e.g. AASHTO) Country B Country C Set the reasonable and acceptable guidelines UNESCAP 39
Number of crashes To answer HOW / WHY - How : Size, material, color - Why : Performance evaluation Before T r e a t m e n t After Time Crash reduction rate Actual crash test Simulation experiment UNESCAP 40
To answer HOW / WHY UNESCAP 41
To answer HOW / WHY UNESCAP 42
Technical standard should be based on the political basis not a theoretical basis - Participation of stakeholders in AH project is key issue - This research play important role for opinion coordination and agreement 2015 Share the research strategy 2016 Draft version of technical standard for RSF 2017 Final version of technical standard for RSF Participation, Feedback & Coordination! UNESCAP 43
UNESCAP 44