1. Page  1 Insert the title of your presentation here Presented by Name Here Job Title - Date Route Safety Management and Evaluation Presented by Shaun Helman 25 th November 2008

2. Page  2 Scope of research Literature survey Data and case studies from Local Highway Authorities ‘Route Safety’: How is it managed and evaluated? What is the impact so far? Guidance Recommendations

3. Page  3 What is a ‘route’ in this context? A road with broad consistency in terms of usage, traffic flow and other characteristics: Rural roads Some mixed-priority and semi-urban roads Strategic A and B roads (whether rural, urban or mixed-priority) Usually single carriageway Does not include roads around schools and / or in town centres

4. Page  4 What is ‘Route Safety’? A road safety treatment - consisting of a package of interventions - to reduce accident risk and severity along a route. Accidents are distributed along a route rather than clustered Normally low-cost Treatment may comprise any of the 3 ‘E’s, or a combination Consistent approach to treatment Does not necessarily exclude site specific interventions

5. Page  5 How is route safety managed and evaluated? Local Authority responses include: Systematic approach to problem identification Mapping Thresholds Prioritisation Accident analysis Review of progress Evaluation: Mainly accident numbers / rates Sometimes speed Page  5

6. Page  6 What is the impact on casualties? Typical casualty reductions of between 30% and 70% Example 1 - B4012 south of Thame (Oxfordshire) Double white lines / warning signs / illuminated road studs 32 accidents in five years ‘ before ’ 16 accidents in five years ‘ after ’ Severity ratio also down Page  6

7. Page  7 What is the impact on casualties? Example 2 – A631 in Nottinghamshire Cats ’ eyes / double white lining improved / red surfacing / central hatching / high visibility signing / 50mph speed limit introduced / average and mobile speed cameras £ 900,000 spent Before: 21 accidents per year – 9 KSI After: 13 accidents per year – 5 KSI Example 3 – A259 West Sussex Speed limits revised / dual carriageway reduced to single carriageway / Pegasus crossing Traffic speeds fell by 25% Before: 18 casualties per year After: 4 casualties per year Page  7

8. Page  8 What is the impact on behaviour? Very little is known about the impact on other driver behaviours Lack of data Some evidence of the impact of route treatments on behaviour Page  8

9. Page  9 Why consider behavioural change? Different roads with similar flows may have different accident rates Road features? e.g. more bends per km, greater junction density … Driver types and journey purposes? Page  9 Address inconsistencies between: Driver behaviours, and Road characteristics

10. Page  10 Can be used as proxies for accident risk to some degree Much shorter evaluation period Depending on funding, accident types and road characteristics, could include: Speed Overtaking Close following Lateral position Fatigue … Driver behaviours Page  10

11. Page  11 De Almeida Roque and Cardoso (2001)  IP5 route in Portugal – various route treatments along 170km stretch -improvements to -drainage -sign visibility -curves -deceleration lanes -signing of climbing lanes

12. Page  12 De Almeida Roque and Cardoso (2001)  IP5 route in Portugal – various route treatments along 170km stretch -90km/h speed limit -suppression of overtakes in most dangerous sections -rumble strips on edge of road -mandatory day-time running lights on some sections -50m following distance minimum for lorries

13. Page  13 De Almeida Roque and Cardoso (2001)  Before and after evaluation -hourly traffic flow -spot speed -following distance -distance between front wheel and edge of road -lights on/off

14. Page  14 De Almeida Roque and Cardoso (2001)  Several changes found -Lower speed on curves -Greater distance from edge of road -Daytime running lights from 11% to 90% -Sub 50m headway for trucks did not change

15. Page  15 De Almeida Roque and Cardoso (2001)  6% flow increase  But reduction in fatal accidents from 46 to 28  Fact that behaviours changed as well as accidents (especially in light of flow changes) supports claim that treatment made route safer

16. Page  16 Outline guidance Collect data & analyse Choose interventions Monitor & evaluate

17. Page  17 Data Accident and casualty data ‘Contributory’ factors Traffic flow data Speed data? EuroRAP ratings? Local knowledge Other relevant information … Collect data & analyse Analysis Road user type Junction / non-junction Time of day Road condition Driver profile Average accident rate Compare with control(s)

18. Page  18 Traffic flow Junction density Bendiness Hilliness Road widths and alignment Visibility Road markings Collect data & analyse Signing Lighting Route consistency Speed Headways Overtaking Lateral position Depending on results of initial analysis, investigate possible additional explanatory factors:

19. Page  19 Target interventions to address the problem(s) If removing problem is too expensive, apply mitigation measures Might include speed reduction measures Might include treating roadside features to reduce severities Adopt consistent approach along whole route Choose interventions

20. Page  20 Rural: Speed limit review In village treatments Bend treatment Wide single 2 + 1 design Route Alert Choose interventions Urban: Pedestrian crossings / refuges Median treatments 20mph limit Widened footways Kerb build-outs Gateway treatments Signs and markings Passive safety Safety cameras Media campaigns

21. Page  21 Monitor changes in: Relevant behaviours Soon after Longer term Accident and casualty data Preferably after several years Control for changes in flow and accident trend Monitor & evaluate

22. Page  22 Has behaviour changed as intended? How and why have accident and casualty rates changed? Link intervention to changes in driver behaviour AND accident rate What other factors have contributed to the success or otherwise? Share knowledge gained about what works AND what doesn’t Monitor & evaluate

23. Page  23 Thank you Presented by Shaun Helman 25 th November 2008 Tel: 01344 770650 Email: shelman@trl.co.uk

24. Page  24 IHT/CSS Conference 25 November 2008 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ROUTE SAFETY Rob Salmon

25. Page  25 SUMMARY OF TRL RESEARCH  Current approach ? - varied  Impact so far ? - positive overall  Evaluation ? - some  Evidence ? - limited  Behaviour is a key component  Guidance

26. Page  26 THE DYNAMIC INTERFACE  Driver awareness  Skills but distractions  Variable demands  Inconsistent route standards  Different environments Can the driver cope ?

27. Page  27 DRIVER REQUIREMENT ROUTE / ENVIRONMENT STANDARD GOOD POOR DRIVER ABILITY POOR GOOD DEMAND RESPONSE

28. Page  28 FUTURE DIRECTION ?  Improve the evidence base  Understand, measure and influence driver behaviours  Refresh route safety strategies  Invest in route infrastructure  Integrate the 3 E’s  Role of local safety partnerships