Ian Bishop

Traffic Engineer

Assessing Our National Highway Network:

Highway Reviews & AusRAP – A Combined

Approach

Introduction

• Advocating for better roads

– On behalf of 600,000 members, 27% of whom live in regional SA

– Backwater to Benchmark (2005)

– Towards 2020 (2009)

• Roads need to be forgiving

– Compliant road users accounted for

• 34% of fatalities in 2008

• 74% of non-fatal crashes (1998-2000)

• The cost (5-year average, SA)

– Road Toll : 107

– Serious Injury: 1014

– 60% of fatalities occurred rurally

2

AusRAP Overview

• Subsidiary of iRAP

• Utilises 4 globally consistent protocols

– Risk Maps

– Star Ratings

– Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIPs)

– Performance Tracking

AusRAP Survey & Coding

• Route Review

– Video captured from specially equipped survey vehicle

– Data recorded at 10m intervals

– GPS referencing

4

AusRAP Survey & Coding

• Coding

– Specialised software is used to measure the corridor

– Video data aggregated into 100m intervals

– Video coder records parameters

• Pavement condition

• Width measurements

• Roadside hazards

• Infrastructure provision

5

Star Ratings

• Road Protection Score (RPS) calculated

– Measure of the probability and severity of a crash occurring

– Calculated from risk factors

• RPS plotted by distance along the road and allocated Star Band

• 5-star represents safest roads and 1-star the least safe

• Risk of death or serious injury increases with the fewer stars

awarded

6

Star Ratings - Examples

7

1-Star: Eyre Highway, near Kyancutta

Unprotected

Vegetation Narrow

Lanes

High Run-off Road

Risk

Minimal Shoulder

Seal

Star Ratings - Examples

8

3-Star: Sturt Highway, near Blanchetown

Minimal

Vegetation

Wider

Lanes

Audio Tactile Line

Marking

Low Run-off Road

Risk

Adequate Shoulder

Seal

Head-on Crash

Risk

Star Ratings - Examples

9

5-Star: Princes Freeway, near Geelong, Victoria

Wide

Shoulder Seal

Protected

Roadside

Hazards

Low Run-off Road

Risk

Duplicated

Road

Audio Tactile Line

MarkingWide

Lanes

Safer Roads Investment Plans

• Builds on Star Ratings, providing cost-effective, network-wide

countermeasures

• Allows financial analysis of the options

• Provides an estimate of return on investment

– AusRAP estimates the FSIs over a 20 year period

– Treatments selected and risks recalculated

– Determines FSIs saved

– BCRs calculated

• Treatments can then be prioritised

10

Hazards & Countermeasures

• Run-off road and head on crashes account for 30 – 45% of

fatalities

• Countermeasures that reduce the frequency and severity of

these crashes are usually low cost

Examples

11

Run-off Road Crashes

• Hazard removal ≈ -80%

• Barrier Installation ≈ -30%

• Shoulder sealing ≈ -40%

Head-on Crashes

• Physical Median ≈ -90%

• Shoulder seal ≈ -40%

• Provision of overtaking lanes ≈ -30%

Case Study: Dukes Highway

• Significant safety

improvements:

– Wide centreline

– Vegetation removal

– Lane Widening

– Pavement rehabilitation

– Shoulder sealing

– Shoulder widening

– Wire rope barriers

– Audio tactile line marking

12

• Dukes Highway has received $100M funding

Case Study: Dukes Highway

13

RAA’s Highway Reviews

• About the reviews:

– Compliments AusRAP data

– Provides a commentary on hazards, infrastructure and ride experience

– Highway measurements taken every 50 – 100km

• Features assessed:

– Signs

– Line marking

– Pavement condition

– Vegetation

– Lane geometry

– General hazards

– Hazard protection

14

RAA’s Highway Reviews

• Benefits:

– Exposure to typical highway

conditions and common issues

– Observe driver behaviour

– Allows discussion with motorists

that frequently use the route

– Allows identification of issues that

may not be apparent in video

surveys

15

What’s the better approach?

• AusRAP is an invaluable tool based on scientific research and

development

• AusRAP can forecast and financially quantify the benefits

BUT…

• It can take up to 12 months from survey to finalising data

• Highway conditions can change in this time

16

What’s the better approach?

• Highway reviews take less time to report

• Can capture changes in the highway

• Highway reviews useful for validation

• Can identify issues not apparent in the video

BUT….

• Reviews are largely subjective

• Comparison between years can be difficult

17

Summary

• AusRAP

– The primary tool for advocating purposes

– The SRIPs offer a powerful tool for establishing funding priorities

– Processing times can however be lengthy

– Video limitations

• Highway reviews

– Provide insight into “the motorist’s experience”

– The Reviews can identify issues that may not be apparent AusRAP analysis

– The reviews can be quite subjective

• Solution

– A combined approach provides a rounded assessment of the issues

– RAA has found that combining the approaches has been effective for

reporting

18

Questions

19