1

TRANSPORT FORUM 2014

Urban road safety training workshop
Manila, The Philippines
Sept 19, 2014
Sangjin HAN
han@koti.re.kr
Korea Transport Institute


Urban road safety audits in Korea
- Evaluating safety performance-
2
CONTENTS
I. Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation
II. Good Practices of Road Infrastructure Safety Management
III. Risk Maps
IV. Star Ratings
V. Questions and Answers
VI. Road Safety Audit in Korea
3
Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation?
Questions
- All design criteria are satisfied,
BUT some road sections have more accidents?
- Attribute on road users, Careless driving!
BUT why people make mistakes on certain road sections more?

Design Standards cannot explain all
- Design standards are mimimum
No incentive to introduce higher standards
- Design standards cannot consider interactions in different factors


Why Road Infrastructure Safety Evaluation? 4
Roads are public goods
- Having certain number of users
Captive demands guaranteed
- Less motivation for better service
Safe System Approach
- Road Users, Vehicles, and Road Infrastructure all go
together for safer system
- Basic: People can make errors!
- How road infrastructure can protect imperfect people
from being hurt in crash
- Road authority is a key player in safe system
- Benchmark vehicle industry (Volvo)
- Vision Zero (S), Sustainable Safety (N), Towards Zero
(Australia)
Good practices of
road infrastructure safety management
5
- Road Infrastructure Safety Management (EU Directives)
Road Safety Impact Assessment
Road Safety Audit
High Risk Sites
In-depth Investigation
**Legal requirements for all EU-TEN roads

- Safety Performance Indicators
Benchmarking safety of other countries
ETSC reports
SUNflower Approach

Good practices of
road infrastructure safety management
6
- Road Assessment Program
EuroRAP, AusRAP, usRAP, iRAP etc.
- Road Safety Measures Efficiency Assessment
Accident Modification Functions
Rosebud (UK) etc.
- ESN models
Difference from ideal road conditions (average safety level)
Cost savings possibility
Implemented in Germany and Austria

7
About iRAP
Assessment Process
Risk Map 8
Risk from all contributory factors:
human factors, vehicles, and road infrastructure
Objective safety evaluation based on revealed risk
Risk Map
Traffic Volume Length of Roads No. of accidents
Fatal, seriously injured..
3- 5 years
correspondent to
accident data
Distance between
starting and ending point of
road section
9
Risk Map
Accident Data (2007-2009)
Fatal, seriously injured, slightly injured (no PDO)
KOTSA, KoRoad (X, Y Coordinate)

Traffic Volume (2007-2009)
Passenger cars, buses, trucks
Yearly statistical book (MLTM)

Road Sections
IC to IC or JC
Sufficient number of accidents
Distinctive to the public

Data Collection for Motorway
10
Risk Map
Crashes per kilometre
Accidents/km per year
Accident density
Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled
Accidents/vehicle-km per year
Individual risks

Essential Indicators
Risk in relation to roads with similar flow levels
Potential cost savings from crash reductions
EPDO equivalence
Accident cost
Selective Indicators
11
Risk Map
Classifications
Risk Category Accidents/km Accidents/vehicle-km
Very low 0~0.467 0~4.416
Low 0.468~0.985 4.417~6.012
Medium 0.986~1.830 6.013~7.632
High 1.831~3.366 7.633~9.987
Very high 3.367 9.988
Risk Category Accident Cost/km Accident Cost/veh-km
Very low 0~7.879 0~3.911
Low 7.88~13.378 3.912~34.838
Medium 13.379~19.879 34.839~53.892
High 19.88~32.789 53.893~74.239
Very high 32.79 74.24
12
Risk Map
Results
Crashes per kilometre Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled
13
Risk Map
Results
Crashes per kilometre
14
Risk Map
Results
Crashes per vehicle kilometre travelled
15
Risk Map
Crashes per kilometre profile by route
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
Risk Map
Crashes per vehicle kilometre profile travelled by route
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
Risk Map
Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/km)-examples
Route 12 (Muan-Woonsu), 0.04
Route 65 (Starting Point-Ulsan JCT), 0.07
Route 253(GochangJCT-Daeduk JCT), 0.07
Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/vehicle-km)-examples
Route 12 (Muan-Woonsu), 0.85
Route 40 (Seopyongtack JCT-Daeso JCT), 0.99
Route 65(Starting Point-Ulsan JCT) 1.1o

18
Risk Map
Top 3 high risk road sections in motorway (crash/km)- examples
Route 100 (Seoun JCT-Jungdong IC), 13.97
Route 65 (Songnae IC-Jangsu IC), 13.89
Route 1 (Suwon IC-Singal JCT), 10.00

Top 3 safety road sections in motorway (crash/vehicle-km)-examples
Route 451 (Namdaegu IC-Sungseo IC), 27.73
Route 10 (Sanin JCT-Chilwon JCT), 23.96
Route 120(Seowoon JCT-Bucheon IC) 20.58

Star Rating 19
Risk from road infrastructure:
Head-on crashes, Run-off crashes, Crashes in junctions
Quantitative evaluation on prevention or reduction of crashes
Star Rating
Star Rating
Head-on Crashes Junction Crashes Run-Off Crashes
Speed
Road side obstacles
Delineator, etc.

Speed
Median types
Necessity of overpass, etc.
Speed
Junction types
Traffic volumes, etc
Star Rating 20
National Road Route 3
Star Rating 21
Speed 80km/h
Lane width
2.75m to 3.25m
Curvature Straight
0.67
1.1
1.0
Quality of curve
Delineation
Shoulder width
Shoulder rumble strips
Road condition
Adequate 1.0
Adequate
<= 1m
No
1.0
1.3
1.0
Good 1.0
Speed
Roadside severity (left)
80km/h
Object 0-5 m
0.44
5.0
L
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

0.44
Roadside severity (right)
Drainage 5.0
Run-off Crashes
Star Rating 22
Speed 80km/h
Lane width
2.75m to 3.25m
Curvature Straight
0.67
1.1
1.0
Quality of curve
Number of lanes
Overtaking demand
Road condition
Adequate 1.0
2
Low
1.0
0.6
Good 1.0
Speed
Median
80km/h
Rumble strip
0.44
3.3
L
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

0.29
Head-on crashes
Star Rating 23
Speed 80km/h
Type
3L sig. left turn
Cross volume
1000-10,000vpd
0.67
30
0.5
Quality
Minor access density
Adequate 1
Low 1
Speed
Type
80km/h
3L sig. left turn
0.44
3.25
L
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

4.75
Junction crashes
Star Rating 24
0.44 0.29 4.75
5.48
Overall RPS
Star Rating 25
RPS Profile (Natioanal Route 3)
5.48
Star Rating 26
Road Types Length(km) 1 star 2 star 3 star 4star 5star
Motorway 103.5 3% 23% 73% 1%
35 45.1 7% 33% 60%
45 58.4 15% 82% 2%
107.4 1% 15% 22% 54% 8%
3 23.3 3% 8% 89%
19 45.7 2% 29% 36% 24% 9%
37 16.7 36% 64%
38 19.6 79% 21%
100.6 1% 34% 35% 24% 5%
510 26 1% 47% 21% 13% 18%
516 23.2 5% 10% 68% 17%
520 16.9 64% 36%
525 34.5 26% 24% 49% 1%
311.5 1% 17% 27% 51% 5%
RPS (Chungcheongbukdo- sample 311.5km)
Star Rating 27
38

:
Sealed shoulder
Adequate delineation
2 straight, wide lanes
Divided with safety barrier
Safety barrier
Good pavement condition
No rumble strips
80 km/h
No intersection
RO: 4 HO:5 INT:5
5-star National Roads
Star Rating 28
19

:
RO:1 HO:1 INT:5
Narrow sealed shoulder

Adequate delineation

Fixed objects (0-5m) both sides

Good pavement condition
No rumble strips
60 km/h
Very sharp curves
Centreline only
No intersection
Wide lanes
1-star National Roads
29
Questions and Answers
Who will be responsible on Road Assessment Program?
Governments
Road Authorities
Motoring Clubs

What if road authorities are sued after RAP by insurance company?
Not reported yet
Can be a proof of safety efforts (r.f. Road Safety Audit in U.K)

How to interpret difference in Risk Map results and RPS
High risk, Low RPS : infrastructure can be a main risk factor
High risk, High RPS: road users can be a main risk factor
Low risk, Low RPS: road users are careful in risky roads
Low risk, High RPS: ideal case

30
Questions and Answers
Difference from Road Safety Audit?
RAP is for roads in operation
RSA is for roads in design
RAP : Road risk management in network level

RAP only for car occupants?
Car occupants plus,
bicyclists
motorcyclists
Pedestrians

Always bad RPS star rating for low class road?
Speed is main scaling factor
1 star roads in motorway, 5 star roads in rural roads
31
Questions and Answers
All roads maintains Design Standards, but low RPS?
Design Standard is just for minimum
DS cannot consider interaction between different factors

Road Safety Audit in Korea 32
- Success Stories in Motorway
Korea Highway Corp. conducted RSA (2004)
Mostly effective (-2 % ~ -100 % in Yongdong; Mun, 2012)
- Traffic Safety Act (Article 34, 35, 36)
In effect from 2008
Safety audit for transport operators (passenger, freight)
Road infrastructure (main trunk roads, urban roads, new)
- Improvement Points
Qualitative judgement
Not much new road projects
Low project costs: Less incentives for participation