Ulla Saari

Planning and design implications from traffic safety evaluation for tramway systems

Thesis submitted for examination for the degree of Master of Science in Technology. 18.2.2019 Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Milos N. Mladenovic, PhD Advisor: M. Sc. Davy Beilinson

Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi

Abstract of master's thesis

Author Ulla Saari Title of thesis Planning and design implications from traffic safety evaluation for tramway systems Master programme Spatial Planning and Transportation Code ENG26 Engineering Thesis supervisor Milos Mladenovic Thesis advisor(s) Davy Beilinson Date 18.2.2019 Number of pages 99 Language English

Abstract

Modern tramways are a part of traffic system for urban and densifying city structure. First modern tramways are planned nowadays in . Planning and design create a base for a safe traffic system. Traffic safety influences on our everyday life and is a requirement for a well-functioning and efficient system and city structure.

This thesis concentrates on planning and design of tramway systems from traffic safety point of view. In this thesis, traffic safety for tramway systems is studied by using data from , and Dublin. GIS-analysis, data analysis, conflict point maps and previous studies are used to identify design factors influencing tramway safety. Based on the accident data, specific points of infrastructure are considered in terms of safety. Planning and design solutions are considered for motor , pedestrians and cyclists. Safety in design is studied for intersections, crossing points and stop areas.

Clarity of the traffic system is a key factor for safe environment. Design and planning should focus on users’ angle to create safe traffic system for tramways. Visibility, sight distances and sight triangles should be considered, especially at intersections and crossing points. Design of tramways should be consistent and easy to understand in whole traffic system. Cooperation of land-use planning, and transport planning is crucial. Especially, when identifying desire lines and planning the routes and the locations for crossing points and tram stops. Every accident is a result of traffic conflicts. Number of conflict points should be minimized for each planning area by traffic management and guidance.

Traffic safety requires constant inspection, development of environment and active reaction to safety problems. Accident data provides useful information of challenges in traffic system. The traffic conflict technique allows reacting to the challenges before occur. In this thesis, some used tools for tramway safety evaluation are introduced.

Keywords , traffic safety, transportation planning, street design, geometric design

Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Diplomityön tiivistelmä

Tekijä Ulla Saari Työn nimi Suunnittelun vaikutus raitioteiden turvallisuuteen Maisteriohjelma Maankäytön suunnittelu ja Koodi ENG26 liikennetekniikka Työn valvoja Milos Mladenovic Työn ohjaaja(t) Davy Beilinson Päivämäärä 18.2.2019 Sivumäärä 99 Kieli Englanti Tiivistelmä

Raitiotieliikenne on tärkeä osa liikennejärjestelmää tiiviissä kaupunkirakenteessa. Ensimmäisiä pikaraitioteitä suunnitellaan parhaillaan Suomessa. Suunnittelu luo pohjan turvalliselle liikennejärjestelmälle ja -ympäristölle. Liikenneturvallisuus vaikuttaa ihmisten joka päiväiseen elämään ja on edellytys toimivalle ja tehokkaalle kaupunkirakenteelle.

Tämä diplomityö keskittyy raitioteiden suunnitteluun liikenneturvallisuuden näkökulmasta. Työssä raitioteiden turvallisuutta on tutkittu olemassa olevien raitiotiejärjestelmien onnettomuusdataa käyttäen. Kohdekaupunkeina on käytetty Helsinkiä, Göteborgia ja Dublinia. Työssä tunnistetaan tuvallisen raitiotiejärjestelmän kannalta tärkeimpiä muuttujia. Tuloksien saamiseen on käytetty GIS-analyysejä, datan tarkastelua ja konfliktipiste karttoja sekä aiempia tutkimuksia.

Raitioteitä liikennejärjestelmässä ja käytettyjä suunnitteluratkaisuja on tarkastelu erikseen datan perusteella turvallisuuden kannalta kriittisissä kohteissa. Eri tienkäyttäjien tarpeita ja vaatimuksia on pyritty tunnistamaan raitiotiejärjestelmässä. Risteysalueiden, ylityskohtien ja pysäkkialueiden suunnitteluratkaisuja tarkastellaan erikseen.

Liikennejärjestelmän selkeys ja suunnittelu käyttäjälähtökohtaisesti ovat avain muuttujat turvallisen liikennejärjestelmän luomisessa. Suunnittelussa tulisi huomioida näkyvyys, näkemäalueet ja -kolmiot jokaisen suunnittelukohteen kohdalla, erityisesti risteysalueilla ja ylityspaikoissa. Suunnittelulla pitäisi luoda yhtenäinen ja helposti ymmärrettävä ympäristö, jossa liikenteen turvallisuutta ja toimivuutta tarkastellaan kokonaisvaltaisesti. Maankäytön ja liikenteen vuorovaikutus tarkastelujen tekeminen suunnitteluprosessissa on tärkeää, erityisesti reittien, ylityskohtien ja pysäkkien sijoittamisen kannalta. Konfliktipisteet luovat riskin liikenneonnettomuuksille. Konfliktipisteiden määrä tulisi minimoida jokaiselle suunnittelukohteelle liikenteenhallinnan ja ohjauksen avulla.

Liikenneturvallisuus vaatii jatkuvaa tarkastelua, ympäristön kehittämistä ja haasteisiin reagoimista. Onnettomuusdataa keräämällä ja tarkastelemalla voidaan havaita turvallisuuspuutteita. Konfliktipistemittauksilla on mahdollista puuttua mahdollisiin puutteisiin turvallisuudessa jo ennen onnettomuuksia. Työssä esitellään lyhyesti turvallisuuden seurantaan käytettäviä keinoja.

Avainsanat Pikaraitiotie, liikenneturvallisuus, liikennesuunnittelu, katusuunnittelu

Preface

This thesis project started in the summer 2018 when City of Espoo provided the opportunity to study how to design safe tramway. Since, then I have had the privilege to study and learn from modern tramways and traffic safety for tramway systems.

I would like to thank my supervisor Asst. Prof. Milos Mladenovic for great discussions and guidance. I am grateful to my advisor M.Sc. Davy Beilinson for interesting discussions, support and pictures of tramways.

I want to thank Jussi Yli-Seppälä, Claes Johansson and Reddy Morley for sharing the accident data, I am grateful for Lauri Kangas and Johannes Yezbek for sharing knowledge of tramway design and tramway safety. I want to thank Eero Sauramäki for introducing tramway traffic management in Helsinki, and Teemu Romppainen and Kai Hermonen for helping me to understand safety aspects of tramcars.

I am grateful for every discussion and email changed concerning tramways, of which all helped me to understand tramway safety better. Special thanks to my colleagues, friends and family.

Espoo 18.2.2019

Ulla M. Saari

Contents

Abstract Abstract (in Finnish) Preface Contents ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Background ...... 4 2.1 Definitions ...... 4 2.2 Finland ...... 5 2.2.1 Legislation ...... 5 2.2.2 Planning principles ...... 6 2.2.2.1 Tramway ...... 6 2.2.2.2 (Raide-Jokeri) ...... 9 2.2.3 Accident data collection ...... 11 2.2.3.1 Helsinki ...... 11 2.3 International background ...... 15 2.3.1 EU Legislation ...... 15 2.3.2 Swedish legislation ...... 15 2.3.3 Irish legislation ...... 17 2.3.4 Accident data collection ...... 17 2.3.4.1 Gothenburg ...... 17 2.3.4.2 Dublin ...... 18 2.4 Safety of tramcars ...... 19 3. Methods ...... 21 3.1 Methodology ...... 21 3.2 Data ...... 23 3.2.1 GIS-analysis ...... 23 3.2.2 Statistical analysis ...... 24 3.2.3 Conflict point study and maps...... 24 3.2.4 Site visits ...... 28 4. Findings ...... 29 4.1 Helsinki ...... 29 4.1.1 Accidents with pedestrian and cyclists ...... 33 4.1.2 Study cases in Helsinki ...... 35 4.2 Gothenburg ...... 51 4.3 Dublin ...... 54 5. Discussion ...... 57 5.1 Safety in transport planning ...... 57 5.2 Visibility and separation of modes ...... 65 5.3 Intersections ...... 69 5.4 Design of tram stops ...... 78 5.5 Design for cyclists ...... 81 5.6 Design for pedestrians ...... 83 6. Conclusion ...... 87

2

1. Introduction

Tramway is a fast, environmentally friendly and space-efficient transport mode with high- performance. One tramway has a capacity up to 260 passengers (Raide-Jokeri, 2019), which equals two articulated busses, corresponding 145 cars. German, and France have great experience of tramways and other European countries are following their lead. Tramways are space-efficient, have great capacity and do not require large space reservations. Tramways are a solution for urban and dense city structure. In addition, tramways and trams are a part of cities’ images and have an important role in urban environment landscape (König & Heipp, 2008). Tramways run on the street, either in mixed traffic or in their own dedicated right-of-way . Tramways are not so sensible for traffic congestions and weather conditions than for instance busses. Still, the system is not 100 percent safe and interaction with other street users need to be considered carefully. Design should guide street users to select safe routes and guide them naturally (Fontaine, et al., 2015).

Providing safe operation and efficiency, is one of the most important challenges to tramways infrastructure design and the planning principles (De Labonnefon & Passelaigue, 2015). Especially, when tramways are inserted into urban areas and there is interaction with other street users. Tram is generally a safe transport mode but still maintenance and development of tramway traffic safety is a challenging task (De Labonnefon & Passelaigue, 2015). Trams are heavy vehicles and the mass difference of other street vehicles is remarkable. Still, there are areas, known as shared space, where pedestrians and trams interact with each other successfully. Traffic safety is major concern for residents living near areas, where tramways are planned. Based on the study, made in 2014, cars had six times more accident than trams (accidents per million persons- km) (UITP, 2016). The study used the average values of 15 cities for the result. (UITP, 2016). Every accident has its computational economic cost to the state, along with its immeasurable costs and damages. In Finland, Traficom (previously Trafi) has defined a road accident to cost 2.77 million euro to the state (Trafi, 2016).

The traffic system is a sum of a complex interaction between physiological and psychological characteristics of street users. In addition, the traffic system includes the social and physical properties of the traffic environment (Kraay, et al., 2013). Traffic accidents are rare events, and often caused by human errors. Severity of accidents is a sum of several factors, such as street user type, collision angle and collision speed (Laureshyn, et al., 2010). Design is a base for a safe transport system. However, not every problem can be solved, or every accident prevented. In addition, for instance and safety campaigns influence on traffic safety. This thesis concentrates only in design and planning implications.

Several modern tramways are planned across Finland nowadays. In Finland, there are no studies or manuals concentrating tram design and traffic safety. Some studies have been made abroad, for instance COST action TU-1103 has collected experts in 16 different countries to study and share the expertise of tramway safety. The goal of the act is to improve LRT safety and reduce the impact of their conflicts with other public space users. However, the subject is current also in Finland, when Tampere is building its first modern tramway, and Espoo and Helsinki will follow Tampere soon with Raide-Jokeri. In addition, other cities, such as , have their own tramway plans. This thesis studies tramway safety using accident data from three case cities. Case cities are Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin. In addition, several experts helped by e-mails and discussions.

The aim of this thesis is to understand the nature of tramway accidents, identify factors influencing safety and derive some design and planning recommendations for Finnish context. The thesis concentrates only on design and planning aspects and do consider for instance safety education. The thesis focuses on the following research questions:

• Which factors are typical to tramway accident? • Which factors should be considered in planning and design process to create safe tramway environment in Finland? • How traffic safety can be involved to planning and how it can be monitored after implementation of tramways?

Section 2 provides a background for the thesis. Section 3 considers used research methods. Section 4 presents findings and analysis regarding the accidents and case studies. Section 5 includes discussion and good practices adopted from other tramway cities. Thesis is concluded in section 6, which ends the thesis.

4

2. Background

2.1 Definitions

Finnish classify road accidents based on Finnish Traffic Agency’s road accident type catalogue. The most common accident types are described below.

Side collision at intersection Collision includes at least two vehicles, which are crossing (no turning) and entering an intersection from different .

Side-swipe

Rear-end collision

Collision while turning Vehicles are going to same direction.

Collision while encountering in the curve.

Collision while turning Vehicles are entering the intersection from different directions.

Collision while turning Vehicles are entering the intersection from same directions.

2.2 Finland

2.2.1 Legislation

Finnish law did not contain earlier a specific law on the urban rail traffic. The Act about Rail-Borne Urban Traffic came into force in 2018 and it is the most specific law regarding the urban rail traffic. In addition, there are a few acts considering railway system, but typically city rail transport is not included regarding on the EU-legislation. However, some acts consider also the urban rail transport. The Act about Rail-Borne Urban Traffic (Laki kaupunkiraideliikenteestä 2015/1412) enacts about the organizational requirements for the light-rail companies to be able to operate light-rail services. In addition, the act provides regulations regarding health checks for personnel with safety critical tasks, traffic control, and accident reporting. The act was published in December 2015 and came into force on January 2018.

Road Traffic Act (Tieliikennelaki 267/1981) is a general law which is applied to traffic on the road. Tram traffic is considered in the cases when trams operate on roads or streets. Road users are obliged to give right of way to trams despite of the other regulations of obligation to yield. The act provides for parking to be denied so that it would cause inconvenience to tram traffic. The act enacts also about the overtaking a tram. When a overtakes a tram, the overtaking must be done by right side, despite the situations where rails require otherwise. In one-way sections overtaking may be done using left side if the state of traffic allows it (17§). Statutory order of road traffic (Tieliikenneasetus 182/1982) separately define which traffic signs concern also the trams.

The new Road Traffic Act (Tieliikennelaki 729/2018) will come into effect 1st June 2020. The new act considers tramways more. The new act includes two new articles 63§ and 64§. The action §63 considers the location of a tram on the street. A tram can be driven on the tracks despite of their location. On streets with other vehicles, trams must be driven to the same direction than other vehicles. Reversing a tram against other traffic is allowed only under special conditions. The action §64 considers other traffic regulations that effect on tram traffic. Pedestrian crossings have similar power to trams as they have for other vehicles. A tram must give clear passage to a pedestrian, who is already on or going to the . A tram must adjust the speed for pedestrian traffic and speed cannot exceed the speed of 20 km/h on mixed-use-streets or pedestrian streets. On paths marked with a traffic sign, a tram must adjust the speed in accordance with cycling.

The Act on Transport services (Laki liikenteen palveluista 320/2017) is a new law which came into force in 2018. The law replaced the Act on Public Transit (Joukkoliikennelaki 869/2009). The chapter number 6 of the Act considers urban rail traffic. A transport operator who offers transport services on traction network including metro or tram traffic must leave a written notice to Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Traficom). The transport operator can be a public utility or company, or other company or corporation which offers transport services on metro- or traction network. The operator needs to fulfill specific requirements which are enacted in the act. The operator must also observe the safety targets, ordered by Finnish Transport Safety Agency.

Act on rail traffic responsibility (113/1999) (Raideliikennevastuulaki) is a law which enacts about the payments of personal and material damage caused by rail 6 traffic. The act considers railway, metro and tram traffic, and the traffic of other equivalent vehicles, trolleys and devices on rails.

Safety Investigation Act (525/2011) (Turvallisuustutkintalaki) replaced the earlier act considering accident investigation. The act considers the conditions of accident investigation of railway traffic and another rail traffic. The old act enacted that rail and metro accidents must be investigated when there are fatalities or several injured people, or the investigation is needed for some other reason to increase safety or prevent new accidents. The new act does not consider when the investigation for rail and metro- accidents is needed. However, the act enacts in article 2§ that Crash Data Institute response to investigate all accidents with serious injuries (defined in article 3§) and equivalent accidents, related to public or private rail transport.

Land Use and Planning Act (132/1999) (Maankäyttö ja rakennuslaki) enacts about transportation network planning and building. Land use in municipalities is organized and guided by local master plans and local detailed plans. The local master plan expresses the general principles of land use in the municipality. The competent ministry oversees drafting national land use objectives. These national land use objectives are decided in collaboration with the other ministries, regional councils and other authorities and parties whom the matter concerns. Government authorities must take national land use objectives into account, promote their implementation and assess the impact of their actions on local structure and land use. Transport network planning, including tram network planning, is that way strongly bounded to other land use planning.

2.2.2 Planning principles

2.2.2.1 Tampere Tramway

Tampere Tramway will be the first modern tramway in Finland. Tampere has goals for making everyday life and transportation easier and supporting the growth and development of the . The tramway will forward the city for these goals. The tramway is currently in construction phase. The construction has been divided into two sections. The objective is to start operating the first section in 2021. The length of first section will be 15 km and the total length will be 23 km. The planned route is showed in Figure 1 (Raitiotieallianssi, 2019). Tampere Tramway has guidelines and specific planning principles for safety. Their principles are based mainly on Swedish knowledge and the report “Säker Spårväg”. In addition, as a tramway network holder, Tampere will have a design manual for safety. The risk management has been done in tramway safety point-of-view.

Figure 1 The route of Tampere Tramway. (Raitiotieallianssi, 2019.)

Tampere Tramway pointed out several topics to consider according to tramway safety in their planning principles. They have created guidelines by using three quality standards: great quality, mid-level quality and poor quality. Great quality aims for zero in traffic. The mid-quality solutions are proved if other goals for city planning fulfill. Poor quality solutions basically offer the minimum values for design, and they are not allowed to use. Poor quality solutions have high level probability for death or severe accident.

The planning principles considers:

• Separation of walking and cycling from other traffic

Need for separation is defined for different speeds. For lower speeds (under 20 km/h) separation can be fulfilled physically and/or visually. Higher speeds (20– 30 km/h) require physical separation from tramway traffic. High speeds (over 30 km/h) sections are built on their own space, walking and cycling are fully separated from the tram traffic.

• Tram stops

Width of a platform is defined by square meters per passenger. Separation from the rail is fulfilled by using different pavement surface and visual separation. In addition, a location of the crossing needs to be considered; the recommendation is to have platform before the crossing point. In that case, tram speed is low and the visual contact between person crossing the tramway and tramway driver is possible. If the platform is in the end of the crossing point or after it, the tram speed is higher.

8

• Pedestrian crossing points

Guidelines consider surface conditions, visual obstruction, markings of the crossing point, distance between tram tracks and waiting area, signal control, acoustic signal, warning signal and use of z-crossings. Visual obstruction is not allowed to be any wider than 0,1 m. Signal control should include pedestrian lights over driveway and warning lights over tramway.

• Cycling

Crossing point for cyclists should be as perpendicular as possible. Z-crossing is not an option because the wheels of a bicycle can get stuck on the tramway tracks. The recommendation is to have cycling traffic separately. Cycling should not be organized on the tramway. In addition, the distance between tram and cyclist should be long enough. The distance needs to be shorter for straight sections than for curves.

• Intersection areas

Intersections need to be considered by the intersection type, the turning of vehicles, roundabouts and longitude clearance. The recommendation is to have signal control at every intersection. In some cases, for instance at intersections with very low traffic volumes, warning lights may be enough. Turning is recommended to organize on the tracks but also a turning on the right side of the tramway is possible. However, a turning lane between tramway tracks should not be used. Left turns should be avoided. In case of they need to be used, a turning lane should be organized on the tracks. The possible rear-end collisions lead to accidents with less serious injuries than while turning over tracks.

Tram traffic can be organized different ways in roundabouts (Figure 2). The recommended way to trams in roundabouts, is to have tramway in the middle of the roundabout. Crossing middle of roundabout, sideways is also possible but less recommended solution. Tangential solution should not be used.

Figure 2 Tramway design on roundabouts. Recommended alignment is to have tramway crossing the roundabout in the middle. Straight alignment should be used when possible. Second solution can be used for large roundabouts with long diameters, if switchover is needed. The tangential crossing should be avoided.

2.2.2.2 Jokeri Light Rail (Raide-Jokeri)

Raide-Jokeri will be the first modern tramway operating in Espoo and Helsinki. The route of the tramway is showed in Figure 3. The planned line length is approximately 25 km. The project is currently on development stage, the construction phase is planned to start during 2019. Raide-Jokeri has some guidelines concerning safety. Planning principles mention safety in few points. The line of sight- guideline considers the safety in terms of operation by visibility. In addition, there is some guidelines about surface materials, elevation and traffic management at intersection areas. Raide-Jokeri has a substance group, which make decisions about design policy and approves changes in planning principles. The group also considers challenging design tasks. In addition, several engineering offices inspect plans.

Figure 3 The route of Raide-Jokeri. The planned line length is approximately 25 km. (Raide-Jokeri, 2019.)

Even though accidents typically take place at intersection areas, the velocity of traffic and especially high speeds often concern street users. Raide-Jokeri has some guidelines for different speed levels and the need for separation. For instance, the design speed when arriving and leaving tram stops, are lower. The acceleration to the normal line speed is allowed after specifically defined points and limited on the platform areas. Raide Jokeri’s planning principles consider also structure gauge. There are requirements that each rail need to have 700 mm wide and 2000 mm height structure gauge to the fixed obstacles. In addition, there is guidelines for using traffic islands. Traffic island should be used in crossing points, between tramway and roadway, and its width should be at least 2,5 meters. In addition, if the crossing is only partly signalized, it should be staggered.

Clarity is the most important factor at the intersection areas. The number of traffic lanes need to be minimized at pedestrian crossings. The shorter the pedestrian crossing is, the safer it is. Shorter pedestrian crossing also allows shorter intergreen period. Traffic 10 islands can be used to offer shorter crossings. Pedestrian traffic should be organized so that there is no possibility for taking dangerous shortcuts. In organizing cycling traffic should be considered that the tramway crossing happens perpendicularly.

The basic idea is that tram traffic has right of way all the time. Crossing points for pedestrians are marked by using certain type of street markings. Traditional pedestrian crossing cannot be used because it gives right of way for pedestrians always. Raide-Jokeri has not decided the pedestrian crossings markings yet but the aim is to have markings which are coherent and easy to understand (Figure 4). According to the planning principles, the tramway has a gray double cutted curb. The basic guideline is to have signalized intersections on each crossing points of vehicles and tram. However, with low traffic volumes it is possible to have non-signalized intersections if it is otherwise safe and does not influence schedule performance.

Figure 4 Raide-Jokeri aims to have pedestrian crossing points which are clear and easy to understand. Because of tram will have right of way, traditional pedestrian crossing markings cannot be used in crossing points (Kuronen, 2018a.)

2.2.3 Accident data collection

2.2.3.1 Helsinki

Finnish traffic accident data including tramway accidents, is collected by the police. Data is collected to a database, called PATJA. Database includes information of accidents, which are reported to police and of which police has information about location and directions of involved vehicles during accident. In addition, Helsinki Region Transport (HSL) and Helsinki City Transport (HKL) collect accident data. This study concentrates only the police report data. The data used in this thesis is collected 1997–2016.

Accidents are classified by using three severity classes: accidents with property damage, accidents with and fatal accidents. Data includes information about location, accident type, date, , weather and lightning conditions and involved street users. In addition, the intersection type, road conditions and road surface are defined. In addition, police collect information of vehicle directions during the accidents. The data includes information of involved vehicle type, severity of reported accident and direction of the vehicles during the collision. An example of direction information is showed in figure 5 and an example of the police report data is showed in Figure 6.

Figure 5 Information of vehicle directions is collected from accidents. In figure, example of data. Arrows show the directions of the vehicle, in addition type of vehicles and severity of every reported accident is collected. (Yli-Seppälä, 2018).

12

Figure 6 Example of data collection in Helsinki. Data is collected from PATJA.

Tram traffic is managed by HKL in Traffic Management Center (Liikenteenohjauskeskus LOK). Traffic management center can follow the tramways on a map, and for instance identify changes. In addition, tram drivers can contact the center in the case of different kind of problems. Traffic management center can advise and make changes in routes or operating if needed. Traffic management center also takes care of accident situations. The required equipment and help are ordered by the center, as well as the possible changes in operation. Tram drivers fill accident report (Figure 7) and self-evaluation form (Figure 8) after every accident. Reports are mainly used for teaching the drivers. In this moment, HKL keeps the data and it is not used systematically for transport planning.

ACCIDENT REPORT Location Time of accident Company (department) Involved OWN PARTY OTHER PARTY Car Licence number Name Insurance number Address Line Direction Shift Staff number ID Phone Driver Insurance company Weather Conditions Lightning Vehicle Licence number Driver's understanding of quiltiness Alcohol Oneself / Other Yes/No Driving license Owner Does opponent admit? Alcohol Address Yes/No Yes/No Need for police officer Yes/No Dispatcher Phone PERSONAL INJURIES Name Name Address Address

Phone ID Phone ID DESCRIPTION Additional description of accident and damages

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION Location Damages in own vehicle Damages in other vehicle PROCEDURE Insurance company informed Police-notice number Interrogator SIGNATURE Time and location Driver's signature

Figure 7 Accident report form which tram driver fills (translated from original Finnish report form). 14

SELF EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

Driver Date/time: Car: 3. Evaluate the driving speeds during the accident. Where do you base the estimation? Location: When you did Argument observation of danger?

1. What happended? (draw and When you started to Argument write) brake? Own vehicle [RV]> Other vehicles [A]>, [B]>, [C]> etc. When the accident Argument happened?

How long braking distance was? Which brakes did you Crash Electric Rail Emergenc use? brake brake brake y brake

4. Do you think conditions affected on accident?

Which conditions and how?

5. Did something affect on your concentration while driving? 2. Was it last drive of the day, or Yes No last drive of the 1-shift? Yes No Describe more Were you … the schedule? Did you use phone before the accident happened? behind on ahead Yes No

min min How accident could be prevented? Did you feel rush? Yes No

Figure 8 Self-evaluation form for tram drivers (Translated from original self-evaluation form).

2.3 International background

2.3.1 EU Legislation

At EU-level, there are a few statutes considering rail traffic. These statutes cover member countries’ railway network and railway network used as operation. EU-legislation and its executive legislation do not mainly include metro- and tramway traffic or tramways, subway trains or personnel taking care of tramway or metro traffic. Equal technical solutions are crucial in promoting railway transport because of the aim to provide as clear and flexible operation as possible, on member countries railway network and traffic between member countries. Cities’ internal and urban districts’ traffic operate on closed railway system and they do not operate between countries (Riipinen, 2015). Because of that, EU-level harmonization is not needed and there are no regulations according to urban tramway system. Regulations do not deny member states to apply railway transport regulations to urban railway network. In addition, member states are not restricted to enact national regulations and orders according to urban rail network. Many EU member states and the other Nordic Countries have done that.

Regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road (EC No 1370/2007) is the only regulation which considers directly urban rail transport. Regulation took effect on December 2009 and is applied directly without national decree on the implementation of an act. Regulation concerns offering non-profit services on passenger traffic sector and it is applied on national and international exercising of railway traffic, another rail traffic and road traffic. Also, the directive 20006/42/EC on machinery concerns machinery used in tramway and light rail traffic. In addition, there are several EU-regulations according to rail network, but they do not consider tramway traffic.

Earlier EU prepared a directive according to urban rail transport. The directive proceeded to outline proposal level but after that European commission decided to give up the preparation of the directive. The decision of giving up the directive was augmented by opinion that standardizing which based on voluntariness is enough for interoperability of urban rail traffic. The commission decided instead of the directive to develop a voluntary standard system and define initial qualifications for developing city traffic. The work got two EU mandates M/486 and M/487 (EC mandate M/486 EN for Programming & Standardization in the field of Urban Rail x Programming Mandate EC M/487 EN) to establish security standards. Based on the mandates was created CEN CENELEC guide 26 -guide, which includes the initial requirements of developing the urban rail network.

2.3.2 Swedish legislation

Several acts and regulations cover the light-rail services in . The acts and regulations include specific requirements about which regulations and instructions should be provided by light-rail companies.

The Act of safety at metro and light-rail (SFS 1990:1157) concerns safety of metro and trams. This act focuses on permits to operate a tram service, approval of infrastructure and rolling stock, and supervision of the light rail service. The act includes general requirements for the operator of a tram service. Moreover, this document enacts that tram traffic can only be operated by those who have a permit to do so. The Supervisory Authority can enact safety-related requirements to the operator in conjunction with 16 issuing the permits. Tram companies are required to possess the level of organization that is needed for the tramway service to be operated safely. Companies shall also provide a compendium of the safety regulations needed beyond the act and the supporting regulations. The Supervisory Authority must approve each track section before they can be opened.

The Regulations about safety at metro and light-rail (SFS 1990:1165) includes more regulations regarding the reporting of accidents and traffic regulations. The traffic regulations which are valid for tramway traffic are defined in this document.

The Traffic Regulations (SFS 1998:1276) includes the general regulations for road traffic, and some sections of it concern tram traffic. According to the regulation, road users shall yield trams unless there is a yield-sign for the tram driver. A road user is not allowed to enter an intersection if a tram is approaching, traffic lights are red, audible signal is sounding, a barrier is lowered, or the road user could be forced to stop in the intersection. The distance towards the vehicle in front need to be adapted so that there is no risk for a collision in the case of the vehicle in front slows down or stops. The driving speed need to be adapted so that driver can stop within the visible distance. In urban area, the driving speed is not allowed to be over 50 km/h.

The Regulations regarding safety management and safety regulations for metro and light-rail (TSFS 2013:44) provides requirements for the tram companies to exercise a safety management that should be adapted to the type and scale of the operation. In safety management, should be considered that changes in the operation are evaluated for impact on traffic safety, risk assessment is done in case of changes may impact on traffic safety, and accidents and incidents are promptly identified and investigated. The safety regulations of the tram company should include regulations of traffic operation and maintenance on the tracks, health and competency for personnel, maintenance of rolling stock, design and maintenance of infrastructure, and the safety management of the tram operator.

The Regulations regarding traffic safety instruction for metro and light-rail (JvSFS 2008:9) concerns the content of the traffic safety instructions described in the Regulations regarding safety management and safety regulations for metro and light-rail. The regulation includes instructions related on driving the tram, such as speed limits, signs, signals and routines if there are errors.

The Traffic Safety Instruction (TRI) provided by the operator and infrastructure owner in cooperation, offers requirements in accordance to the requirements introduced in Regulations regarding traffic safety instruction for metro and light-rail. The TRI advices that a safe traffic is the priority number one – if there is a need to choose, safety goes above all else. The speed must be adapted under current circumstances when entering a stop. The bell should be rung when setting forth from a stop at places where other road users cross the tracks, before passing through a stop without stopping and at encounters with objects or vehicles that can block the line of sight at pedestrian crossing.

The Service Regulations, provided by the operator, include detailed instruction regarding duties and rights of the personnel, including also instruction for conduct while driving. The driver needs to stop at stops if passenger signals the will to exit at the stop, or there is a person at the stop that clearly want to enter to the tram at the stop. However, in the latter case, the driver may pass through without stopping if the vehicle is fully loaded.

2.3.3 Irish legislation

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 enacts about railway traffic and infrastructure. Part 4 of the Act is called “On-street Regulation of Light Railway” and it considers light railway on-streets. The act enacts mostly about requirements for tram driver, for instance about speed limits, requirements for drivers and insurances needed for light rail vehicles. The act enacts that driver shall not drive over speed limits, under the influence of an intoxicant or without driving license on a public road. Drivers must collaborate with members of Garda Síochána (police).

Transport (Dublin light rail) Act 1996 enacts about the construction, operation and maintenance of a light railway serving the city of Dublin and certain surrounding areas. The Act enacts for instance about planning process and land use regarding the light railway. The act considers also looping trees by the Board, when they interfere operation of tram traffic.

2.3.4 Accident data collection

2.3.4.1 Gothenburg

Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA) is a national information system which contains data of traffic accidents and injuries of Swedish road transport system. STRADA consists the information collected by the police and the medical care services. The combination of these two data sources allows the best possible information from both specific traffic elements and circumstances of the accidents, and severity of the accidents. STRADA also decreases the total number of unrecorded accidents (Trafikverket, 2015). The data is collected 2013-2017.

Example of data is showed in Table 1. In addition, data included information about: • Date • Time • Accident location type (e.g. street, stop, other) • Age and gender of involved • Involved vehicle • Severity • Weather conditions • Reason of trip (free time, work, other) • Description from police • Description from health care

Table 1 Example of data collection.

Year Involved street Severity X- Y- user coordinat coordinat e e 2013 Pedestrian Slightly injured (ISS 1-3) 6409853 324583 2013 Car Slightly injured (ISS 1-3) 6399301 320390 2014 Cyclist Seriously injured (ISS 9-) 6400867 321106 2016 Pedestrian Seriosly injured (ISS 9-) 6399324 318957 2017 Car Moderately injured (ISS 4-8) 6399338 317666

18

Accidents are classified into four groups based on the severity. The severity classes are slightly injured (lindrigt skadad) ISS 1–3, moderately injured (måttligt skadad) ISS 4–8, seriously injured (allvarligt skadad) ISS 9– and fatal accidents (död). Classifications are based on the Injury Severity Score (ISS) as an indication of the severity of injury to the three most severely injured body regions (Trafikverket, 2015). The mean values are showed in Table 2 to demonstrate ISS values better. ISS 1–3 can for instance include small wounds, sprains, ISS 4–8 can include injuries, such as concussion with short time unconsciousness or simple fractures, ISS 9– includes injuries such as concussion with over an hour unconsciousness, severe fractures or brain bleedings (Luleå, 2008). Classification differs from the most general way to classify accidents as accidents with property damage, accidents with injuries and fatal accidents.

Table 2 Accident severities are reported by using ISS classification. Each injury rate has its own ISS rate. In the table is showed the need for healthcare in terms of accident severity (McLean, 1981).

Type of Treatment

Hospital Mean Injury None First-Aid at Severity Scene Casualty Admitted Dept.

< 1 day ≥ 1 day

ISS 1.5 1.5 2.1 4.7 9.5

2.3.4.2 Dublin

Accident data in Dublin is collected by Transportation Infrastructure Ireland. Data is collected from period 2013–2017. Severity of the accidents is classified to minor and serious. Some accidents classified to “serious” accidents have led to fatality. Data has information of date, type, line, place, time and severity of every accident. In addition, there is a short description of the accident. There is no severity classification for every accident. However, descriptions of the accidents typically have short description also about the injuries. Street users are classified into pedestrians, cyclists, cars, motorcycles, , diggers and scooters. In addition, contacts with infrastructure are reported. Accident types are classified into contacts and brushed contacts. Report has classifications also for types “SPAD”, “Event”, “Maintenance”, “Attempt to set fire”, “Trespass” and “Axle cracks”. SPAD includes near misses and other risk situations. The most common SPAD situations seems to be when signals have problems. Other previously mentioned accident types are not considered in this study, because they focus more on the security, functionality and safety inside the trams. Even though severity is classified to minor and serious, the terms include different kind of accidents and different kind of injuries. When studying the descriptions, it was noticed that “minor” pedestrian accidents, required typically visits and care while “minor” accidents with motor vehicles did not cause injuries or required any hospital care. An example of the data is showed in Table 3. Table 3 Example of accident data.

Date Type Line Place Time Severity Description

Brushed Brushed contact with pedestrian who was 1.1.2013 Contact 1 James 14:08 wearing headphones, no injury, person person left scene.

Minor contact with car that breached a red Contact C109 Castleforbes light at junction C109 outbound. 5.1.2013 1 9:45 Minor car Road Emergency services mobilized, one car occupant taken to hospital. Minor contact with car that breached a red Contact A37 O’Connell light at junction A37 inbound. Emergency 9.1.2013 1 9:59 Minor car Street inbound services mobilized, four car occupants taken to hospital.

Minor contact with car that breached a red Contact A36 Jervis Street 18.1.2013 1 7:55 Minor light at junction A36 outbound. No car outbound injuries.

2.4 Safety of tramcars

There are several norms and standards regarding the operative safety of trams. With those norms and standards are taken care that used vehicles are safe for users and other traffic. In this study, these aspects are not concentrated. However, it is important to understand basics of the vehicles to understand accidents in tram point of view. In this chapter, the main characters of tramcar safety are described shortly.

Trams have several devices to improve safety. In addition, they have a few individual systems, which take care only of safety. Teemu Romppainen (2018), system engineer, from Skoda Transtech described shortly the most relevant systems and devices. Systems and devices can try to prevent accidents, minimize damages caused by accidents or give information about accidents.

Minimizing accidents risk is considered in:

• headlights, which offer better visibility. There are no other limitations regarding the headlights than not having red lights towards or white lights backwards. • cameras, which help driver by increasing visibility but also allows study dangerous situations afterwards. Cameras replace side mirrors and record blind spots. • sound. One of the most typical concern of pedestrians and cyclists is the sound of trams. Vehicles are themselves quite quiet, motor and air conditioning of trams produce most of the sound. The motor sound is not typically added to tram speakers (cf. electric cars). Trams have two signals; bell for pedestrian and horn for other vehicles. In addition, driver can speak to microphone outside the tram. • tram doors, which have two safety features. Doors have sensors which observe need for current power, if the it crosses a defined limit, door stop closing. The reason for that is that there is possibly something or someone catch in the doors. In addition, doors get speed signal. By that it is possible to prevent opening the doors when speed is higher than defined value. • dead man’s switch, which takes care of that vehicle does not drive itself. Driver has to press the pedal either all the time, or during certain time periods. 20

Accidents caused by sudden illness or fatigue can be prevented by dead man’s switch. • anti-slip regulation and brakes, which effect on stopping and accelerating the tram. Trams have several brakes and ways to brake: electric motor, hydraulic brakes and rail brake. Driver can use normal braking, electric-, crash- or safe braking. During crash braking wheels stop rolling, rail brake activates, and tram adds sand to the tracks to get higher . Driver need to select the most suitable brakes for each situation. Sudden breakings may cause accidents for passengers inside the tram. Driving needs to be as proactive as possible to ensure travel comfort and safety.

Other safety factors:

• Design. Crash safety is considered in the design. A tram nose has collision element which works as a buffer. Collisions with pedestrians are also considered in design. However, the design of the nose typically requires compromises between designer, engineer and client. The rubber nose is stronger but visually not so good. In addition, pedestrian safety is considered in the nose design so, that the outermost part is at the height of under the knee. By that it is possible to effect way pedestrian will fall backwards. By shaping the nose rounder, pedestrian will fall first to the windscreen and after that roll aside. Nose should not be at the height over the knee, because in that case pedestrian will fall forward and may be run over the tram. Tram vehicle design prevent pedestrians get stuck under the vehicle. • Black Boxes or RedBoxes, are basically equivalent to black boxes of planes. In addition, the computers of the tramcar collect data during the driving. Data can be used for instance evaluating tram drivers’ behavior or accident investigations.

Human errors cannot be removed but the consequences of the errors can try to be minimized. In future, the automatizing of the tramcars can offer new solutions but those are not considered in this study.

3. Methods

3.1 Methodology

Accident data can be analyzed in several ways. When selecting the approach for analyzing the data there are two important things to define. First, the aim of the analyzes. What kind of information is studied? What kind of relations need to be understood? And second, what kind of data there is to use? Police reports typically offer precise and diverse data with many variables. However, they do not consider every accident because they include only reported accidents.

Accident data studies have always some challenges. First, it is important to understand that accidents are rare events and the results of a series of unfortunate realization of many small probabilities. Even though there may be common characteristics between accidents, they are always unique events and have several factors included. Those unique factors include psychological factors and behavior which is not possible to consider in accident reports, because they are typically written by external observer, such as police officer (Laureshyn, et al., 2010). Traffic safety is traditionally described by using the number of accidents or injuries occurred in traffic. Even though, accident numbers point problems in traffic safety, they have also some limitations (Laureshyn, et al., 2010).

Traffic accidents are random events, which means that even if the traffic situation would be same for years, the accident numbers will vary to each other. Expected number of accidents would represent safety better than the actual accident numbers (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). However, expected number of accidents cannot be measured but only estimated with some methods based on the accident history. To produce reliable estimated of the expected numbers of accidents, the data need to be collected for years. At the same time, a challenge is that road conditions and traffic situation is not stable, and development will happen during the years (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). An ethical problem is also, should accidents let happened and people got injuries before some location will be identified to be unsafe.

One challenge, which also was identified in this study, is that every accident is not reported. While only accidents reported to police are collected to accident reports, especially less severe accidents are not included. This is a problem especially when trying to understand traffic safety for vulnerable road users, who may have to suffer before improvements are made. Data collection methods are crucial in this case; who collects the information and how, influence on which accidents are part of reports and statistics. For instance, reporting to police may be felt more difficult than reporting to the insurance company or the tram operator. The nature and characteristics of an accidents may not be always coherent, especially for those who have not been involved at the scene. Collected data includes only part of the information. Numbers may help to understand the development of general safety, but they do not tell the whole truth. Information about how the process preceding the accident is crucial and without the information, it is almost impossible to understand the link between behavior and the accident (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018).

This thesis is based on accident data and literature. Accident data was used from three case cities, which were Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin. Based on the data and goals of the study, GIS-analysis was selected to be a key method. In addition, accidents were studied by statistical analysis and charts. Those analysis and charts were a base for the 22

GIS studies and helped to understand the nature of tram accidents. Gothenburg and Dublin’s data were mainly used for to understand accidents better. Because of the lack of coordinates of accident of Dublin, maps were not plotted of the data. GIS-analysis was used to identify accident sites with highest injury rates, distribution between different accident types and severity of accidents in terms of location. Based on the GIS-analysis of Helsinki, locations for site visit were selected. Those locations represented different kind of environments (intersection, curve, pedestrian crossing and tram stop) and had several tram accidents during last decade.

Regression analysis and the conflict point studies were thought as alternative study methods. However, regression analysis was seen unnecessary heavy and the benefits for this study would not be crucial. Conflict point study was seen useful method but because of lack of experience of it, it was not selected to be used method. However, idea for conflict point maps was found useful and those were made of site visit locations. The methods used were linked to each other during the process. Analysis were made based on each method, and to old already used methods were returned to get deeper understanding of the subject. The process of the thesis, in terms of methodology, is showed in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Used methods during the process.

3.2 Data

3.2.1 GIS-analysis

Geographical information system (GIS) is typically used as a geographical database to store and represent accidental data. However, GIS allows more careful and exact data selection, processing and reduction. With GIS it is possible to make spatial analysis of the results in pre- and post-processing. Typically, accident analyses are done by using combination of GIS and some statistical models to evaluate risk of accidents. The most typical need to use GIS is to examine the spatial distribution and pattern of their accidents and investigate the accident-prone locations (Santria & Castro, 2016). Moran’s I and Getis-Ord, are two most common statistical GIS-based tools, which both can be used for defining hot spots of traffic accidents. (Santria & Castro, 2016). Moran’s I is a statistical tool which measures the spatial dependence of the accident location and evaluates the dispersion and randomity of spatial patterns (Santria & Castro, 2016). In addition, the tool determines the level of concentration. Getis-Ord is a family of statistics that has several attributes which make them attractive to measure the dependence of spatially distributed variables (Santria & Castro, 2016).

Accident maps were made from accidents in Helsinki and Gothenburg. Accident data from Dublin did not include coordinates and because of that maps were not made from the data. Data included street names but because of limited time resources, lack of local knowledge and inaccuracy of accident locations, maps were not made. All maps were made by QGIS 2.18.18., which is a professional GIS application and based on Open Source Software ideology. In Helsinki and Gothenburg case, each accident was plotted on a base map. Several accident maps and heatmaps were made from the data. Accident maps were made separately also for pedestrians and cyclists. Because of the high number of all accidents, heatmaps were used. Heatmaps are used typically visualization for dense point data and they show hot spots. Heatmaps are useful tool when the aim is not to compare different lines or networks to each other but identify locations which have high accident rates, known as hot spots. The hot spots need to be identified before further deeper analysis and proposals of improvements, for instance for traffic signals, street paintings, education of tram drivers and safety street usage campaigns (Bertrand & Fontaine, 2016).

QGIS heatmap plugin uses Kernel Density Estimation and creates a density raster of an input point vector layer. Number of the points of each location is used for calculating the density. The larger number of clustered points results in larger values. Heatmaps were made by using severity classification to identify not only with highest accident rates but also by the severities. Based on the heat maps, some locations were selected for the closer studies. Data is given in different coordinate systems in Helsinki and in Gothenburg. Helsinki uses Finnish coordinate system ETRS89/GK25FIN and Gothenburg Swedish coordinate system SWEREF99 TM.

24

3.2.2 Statistical analysis

In this thesis statistical analyses were used as an assistance to GIS-analysis and identifying the characteristics of typical accidents with trams. Statistical analysis gave information of characteristics of traffic accidents, including trams, from each case city. Statistical analysis was used to identify the most typical accident types for each transport mode, typical accident locations and relation between severity and accident types. Based on the statistical analysis, GIS-analysis was used to make more specific analysis.

Statistical analyses such as regression models, were considered as an alternative for studying data. However, GIS-analysis were found more useful for finding answers to the desired research questions. Regression models would not have given such local and applicable results easily. Typically, statistical approaches use explanatory variables. Explanatory variables are decided and defined based on the model and what is aimed to with the model. Those variables can be factors, such as time, economic development, demographic structure, seasonal trends or road geometrics (Nilsson & Nilsson, 2015). In tram safety evaluation those could be related for instance to intersection type, traffic lights, involved parts and geometrics of the road. These explanatory variables were identified based on the data and the previous knowledge and studies of traffic accidents including trams. After identifying, these possible explanatory variables, other methods were used to have a closer study. The interaction between geometric and traffic factors with accident causation can be approached be trying to find a relationship between accidents occurrence and intersection characters. Multi linear regression, Poisson regression models and Negative binomial model are the mostly used approaches. Each of them has some pros and some cons. (Chin & Quddus, 2001). Regression analysis would not worked as good as possible in this study, because of the difference between accident reports. Each case city has their own kind of accident reports, and instead of accident data from Helsinki, they did not consider for instance geometric features of the accident locations much. Both Gothenburg and Dublin have description of accidents, which includes a lot of good and useful information. However, when using statistical approach, it would have been difficult and time taking to use. Police reports from Helsinki, does not include description but has more precise information about accident location. Because of the differences in data collection, using statistical approaches was found difficult.

3.2.3 Conflict point study and maps

To understand the nature of traffic accidents, it is important to understand which factors lead to them. Accidents are rare events but in addition they are sum of consequences. A collision requires two parties and a conflict between them. Schroder, et al. (2010) describes traffic conflicts as “interaction between two or more vehicles or road users when one or more vehicles or road users take evasive action, such as braking or weaving, to avoid a collision”. Traffic conflict studies allow determining the type of safety problems in study areas. The possible countermeasures can be identified after defining the problem. There are 14 basic types of traffic conflicts at intersection (Schroder, et al., 2010). In most cases, the traffic safety experience of an individual person will be based on conflicts or near-accidents which the individual has experienced. In addition, these experienced conflicts and near-accidents can influence on individuals traffic behavior further, such as route choices or risk-taking (Kraay, et al., 2013).

Actions which vehicles or road users take in response to traffic control devices, highway geometry or weather are not considered as a traffic conflict. Another driver braking to

avoid a rear-end collision with slow-moving vehicle during a green signal phase is considered as a traffic conflict. Observer defines before the observation study the situations considered as conflicts, such as brake lights, squealing , or vehicle front ends that dip or dive as indications that braking occurred and a conflict was possible. The prior occurrence of another traffic conflicts can lead to secondary conflicts. Secondary conflicts are typically “slow-vehicle, same-direction” or “lane-change” conflicts (Schroder, et al., 2010). Typically, secondary conflicts include a third vehicle which responses between the first two vehicles. Traffic events are unusual, dangerous or illegal non-conflict maneuvers, such as running red signals and weaving across gore areas and slowing considerably in traffic lanes (Schroder, et al., 2010).

Before a conflict point study, an observer defines the study area, conflicts to identify and time of the study. An observer fills forms regarding the study area and does not include other possible conflicts to the study. The type of feature, the purpose of the study and the visibility defined the distance between the observer and the intersection. Different positions and the speed of the vehicle’s effects on the visibility. According to Schroder, et al. the typical distance between an observer and study point is between 20 and 91 meters. However, distance should be decided case by case. Conflict studies are typically performed in daylight with dry weather and pavement. In some cases, the study can be specifically oriented to other conditions (Schroder, et al., 2010). The basic idea of the traffic conflict technique is founded on several elementary events which are included in traffic system. Those events differ from each other in their degree of severity. In addition, there is a relation between the severity and frequency of events of that severity. Hyden introduced an idea of “safety pyramid” in 1987. Safety pyramid is classical way to illustrate the idea (Figure 10). Lower part of the pyramid illustrates the normal interaction in traffic. The top of the pyramid includes the most severe events that are also very infrequent compared to the total number of events (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). The original theory of safety pyramid is based on “Heinrich Triangle” theory, which founded on the connection between no-injury accidents and minor-injuries (Battiato, et al., 2013).

Figure 10 Safety pyramid, originally adopted from Hydén 1987 (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). The number of conflicts is an indicator for traffic safety; the more conflicts there are, the more unsafe environment is. However, it would be important to consider also the differences between traffic accidents and conflicts and identify is some conflicts does not lead to accidents (Kraay, et al., 2013). Laureshyn and Várhelyi (2018) present same kind of idea as the concept of severity. According to them, the closeness to a collision is only one dimension of “severity”. In addition, other aspects should be considered in safety studies. If only the proximity to a collision is considered, it does not take into account different nature of accidents with different transport modes (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 26

2018). For instance, there could be two different kind of accidents with different severity class (Kraay, et al., 2013). A Minor collision with a car and a tram, in which tram hits the side mirror of the car, and a near-miss with a tram and a cyclist. First one of these, may be reported as a property damage accident, the second one would not be probably reported to anywhere. Still, it is easy to understand that first one would almost never lead to injuries, when the second one could have had very dramatic consequences if it had become a collision. In addition, the possibilities for evasive maneuvers should be considered, depending on the street environment and transport mode. For instance, a cyclist has more possibilities to make an evasive maneuver which has consequences for the probability of a collision than a car driver at intersection. A tram driver has very limited options for evasive maneuvers, including basically only the different braking techniques.

The Swedish Traffic Conflict Technique (TCT) is one used traffic conflict method. The technique is based on the idea that a collision course is a necessary condition for a conflict. Meaning that a collision will happen unless one of the road users takes an evasive action. The severity of a conflict is defined at that moment when first evasive movement is taken. The road user, who takes the evasive movement first, is called the relevant road user. The conflict severity is defined by time-to-accident (TA) and conflicting speed (CS). Time- to-accidents describes the time that the road users have to perform successfully an evasive action. The lower the TA value is, the nearer the conflict is to be a collision and that way to more severe it would be (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). CS effects both on the possibilities to avoid a collision and potential outcome of the collision. The higher the CS is, the higher severity conflict would be (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). In Swedish TCT, conflicts with severity level above 26 are ranked as serious (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018). However, these studies and values are made for car traffic and that is why the implementation to tram or pedestrian traffic would need another model. Conflicting speeds with trams or with pedestrians would be much lower, also the braking distance would be different for tram than to a car which should be considered in model.

Dutch Objective Conflict Technique for Operation and Research (DOCTOR) is a standardized observation technique. DOCTOR considers a conflict as a critical traffic situation in which two or more street users approach each other so that if evasive maneuver is not done there will be a collision. In DOCTOR, the probability of a collision is defined by the Time-To Collision (TTC) and the Post-Encroachment Time (PET). The TTC describes the time required for two vehicles to collide if they do not change the speed or the path. TTC is present and a continuous function of time, as long as the street users are on collision course. Minimum value of TTC describes the lowest value that is reached during the approach process, which means that the lower TTCmin the higher the risk of a collision will be. Generally, if TTCmin values are less than 1.5 s in urban areas, a potentially dangerous situation exists (Kraay, et al., 2013). The time between the moment when the first street-user leaves the path of the second and the moment when the second reaches the path of the first, is called PET value. The PET values of one second and lower are indicated as possibly critical in urban areas. DOCTOR considers car – car, car – cyclist, car – pedestrian, cyclist – cyclist and cyclist – pedestrian conflicts. However, it is important to understand that traffic conflicts can be multi-dimensional and caused by a sum of events. For instance, a collision may be a result of a conflict between a car and a pedestrian after intersection, which have led to a conflict between a car and a turning car, which still lead to a conflict between a turning car and a tram, leading to a collision. In this sense, studying only one type of street users, will not five full information of the events.

Traffic conflict studies are made by using observers who need to be trained for the studies. In observation, there is always an interpretation by the observer. Observers tend to guide themselves based on their own expectations about what they consider as dangerous. Training and experience will make observer to work more systematically and objectively (Kraay, et al., 2013). Observation periods may not be too long, and the same observer should be used at same places from years to years. Nowadays, it is possible to make conflict studies also by using computer to identify conflicts from videos. However, also that requires to have a person with knowledge of observational studies and the location. The observer must detect the conflict, notice who took the evasive action and when, estimate the street users’ speeds and the distances to the collision point, make a sketch of the conflict and fill the additional relevant information and verbal description of the course of events (Laureshyn & Várhelyi, 2018).

In conflict point study, observer draw conflict point maps during the study period (Schroder, et al., 2010). Those conflict point maps show the movement of the vehicles during the conflict point event. In this thesis conflict point maps were made of site visit locations, which are showed in Figure 11. Conflict point maps include possible conflict points, in terms of possible signalization. Conflict points for merging, diverging and crossing traffic are marked by using different symbols. However, it should be remembered that marked conflict points are only planned conflict points. Especially pedestrians find their own routes and number of conflict points is higher and they are difficult, even impossible to prevent.

Figure 11 Locations of which conflict point maps were made. Tramlines in the picture are new lines, operated since 2017 (HKL, 2017). 28

3.2.4 Site visits

Based on the statistical analyses and heatmaps, five locations were selected for a visit. Heat maps were studied separately for each severity classes. In addition, every fatal accident was studied one by one by using police report information, news and aerial photos from accident year. After identifying the locations with the highest accidents rates police reports were studied. Accidents were sorted by the accident location type, accident type and involved. From each location, were selected locations with high accident numbers. Results from heatmaps and police reports were compared. Locations for a visit were selected so that they would present different kinds of accidents as well and versatile as possible. Site visit locations are presented in section 4.

4. Findings 4.1 Helsinki

The length of the tram network in Helsinki is 76 km and 10 tram lines are operated in Helsinki. The total number of tram stops is approximately 300 and the commercial speed of trams is 14 km/h. Annual passengers on tram lines were 60,2 million in 2017. (HSL, 2018). The average number of reported events by year was 50 events per year 2013–2016. In relation to the annual passenger numbers, it would mean 1 event per 1,2 million passengers. However, it should be remembered that the accidents are not typically directed to passengers but other street users.

Maps and heatmaps were made from the data. According to the heatmaps there are several spots with higher accident rates. In addition, it is notable that some line sections do not have any accidents. The city center has had many accidents with injuries and property damage. U-turn accidents are quite common accidents, especially in Mannerheimintie. Pedestrian accidents occur typically on pedestrian crossings. However, in the accident rates there are no clear change in the amount of accidents for twenty years. Accidents were studied separately for two decades 1997–2006 and 2007–2016. During 1997–2006 was reported 785 accidents and during 2007–2016 536 accidents. Accident number was 32 % lower 2007–2016 than 1997–2006. However, as figure 8 shows, the decrease has not been constant. During 1997–2006, 70 % of all reported accidents were property damage accidents, 28 % accidents with injuries and 2 % fatal accidents. During 2007– 2016, 76 % of all reported accidents were property damage accidents, 23 % accidents with injuries and 1 % fatal accidents. Trend of reported tram accidents is showed in Figure 12.

Accidents in Helsinki 120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Property damage Injury Fatal Figure 12 Trend of tram accidents in Helsinki.

Most of the reported accidents are accidents with property damage. Property damage accidents typically include a car and a tram. During 1997–2016 was reported 964 accidents with property damage. According to Sauramäki (2018), the most typical accident with property damage happen when tramcar hit car’s side view mirrors. Pedestrian accidents are typically accidents with injuries. During 1997–2016, 342 accidents with injury were reported. Most of them were accidents including pedestrians, 30 in addition they include some accidents with cyclists and cars. Fatal accidents are the rarest. During the years 1997–2016, 14 fatal accidents were reported.

Modal share on accidents have been quite same during 1997–2006 and 2007–2016 (Figure 13). Some changes have still occurred: percentage of car accidents have increased, and percentage of pedestrian accidents decreased. Change is still positive because the total number of accidents has decreased. In addition, change can be seen in accident severity share and connection between lower severity and car accidents can be noticed.

1997-2006 2007-2016

17 % 15 % 1 % 2 % 1 %

81 % 83 %

Pedestrian Cyclist Motorbike Pedestrian Cyclist Motorbike Moped Car Moped Car

Figure 13 Modal share of accidents during 1997–2006 and 2007–2016. Number of accidents decreased and was 30 % lower in 2007–2016 (536 accidents) than 1997–2006 (784 accidents).

Some changes have occurred in accident locations. As rare events, fatal accidents are unique cases and the locations are random to each other also. Heatmap shows that the city center, especially Mannerheimintie 22–52, has been and still is location with high accident rates. There have been fatal accidents, during both studied time periods. Accident locations with property damage, seems to remain quite same. Some slight changes can be seen. Property damage accidents have increased in southern Helsinki (Hietalahdenranta and Telakkaranta). Also increase of number of property damage accident can be noticed in Mariankatu curve. Number of accidents have decreased in northern part of Mannerheimintie. However, accidents used to be less severe at Mannerheimintie– Pohjoinen and Eteläinen Hesperiankatu. In that point, number of accidents has decreased by two accidents, but accidents have become more severe. Viides linja has had previously mainly accidents with injuries but in time period 2006–2016, there has been also one fatal accident. However, some positive development can be seen also. During 2006–2016 no accidents were reported to police in Helsinginkatu. In northern part of Helsinki, in Hämeentie no fatal accidents were reported. However, there are still accidents with injuries. (Figure 14)

Accidents 1997-2006

Accidents 2007-2016

Figure 14 Accidents 1997–2006 and 2007–2016. The number of accidents has decreased.

32

Most of the fatal accidents are pedestrian accidents. During the studied period, only one of the fatal accidents did not include pedestrian. However, when the driving speeds of trams are higher, also the risk for more severe accidents is higher at conflict points. Most of the all accidents take a place at intersections. During the study period, based on the data, 61 % of accidents were reported as accidents at intersections. However, the actual number is higher because police reports do not always contain all information which could be given. Accidents that do not take a place at intersections are typically on pedestrian crossings, road sections where lane changes are needed or at narrow streets. Accidents on straight road sections are typically accident with property damages. The relation between transport modes and accident severity is showed in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Accident severity in relation to transport modes

Based on the data over half of the all accidents at intersections occur at signalized intersections. One quarter of accidents took a place at intersections with no priority arrangements. Accidents at intersections with stop-signs seems to be rare, intersections with yield-sign had 9 % of all intersection accidents and rest of the accidents are marked in the police report to be accidents at other intersection types. Other intersection type includes for instance three-way junctions, intersections where other traffic cross tramways, roundabouts and intersections between pedestrian streets and tramways (Figure 16).

Figure 16 Accidents with tram and car at intersections in Helsinki, 1997-2016.

4.1.1 Accidents with pedestrian and cyclists

Both pedestrian and cyclists are unprotected road users and the mass difference to tram is remarkable. That is also the reason for higher severity of pedestrian accidents. The share between accident severities is quite different than when speaking about vehicle accidents.

During 1997–2016 were reported 208 pedestrian accidents and 32 accidents with cyclists. Pedestrian accidents were also studied separately during two decades. Number of accidents has decreased 41 %, from 133 accidents to 78 during last ten years. During 1997–2006, 19 % of all reported accidents were property damage accidents, 77 % accidents with injuries and 5 % fatal accidents. During 2007–2016, 21 % of all reported accidents were property damage accidents, 73 % accidents with injuries and 6 % fatal accidents. The percentage of fatal accidents increased 2007–2016 but the number of fatal accidents were still lower than 1997–2006.

Most of the pedestrian accidents take place on pedestrian crossings, percentage of all pedestrian accidents were 59 %. Based on the police reports, 59 % of pedestrian accidents take place on pedestrian crossings, 3 % are crossings without pedestrian crossings and 4 % take place at tram stops. However, it is good to notice that some pedestrian crossings are part of stop design. Fatal accidents have taken place both on pedestrian crossings and outside pedestrian crossings.

Accidents including a tram and a cyclist are rare. During the studied time period was reported 22 accidents. Of these accidents, 73 % were accidents with injuries and 27 % property damage injuries. No fatal accidents were reported. Intersections are accident locations in 45 % of tram-cyclist accidents, 23 % of accidents are classified as “other accident” and rest 32 % include side-swipe collisions, collisions while turning and head- on collisions. Tram accidents including pedestrian or cyclists are showed in Figure 17.

34

Figure 17 Accidents with trams and pedestrians or cyclists.

4.1.2 Study cases in Helsinki

Five locations were selected to have a closer study, based on the accident maps made of police report data. Hotspot maps were made and those showed the locations with the highest accident rate. Those location were studied more, concentrating on the severity, accident types, places and the year of accidents. In addition, locations were selected so that they could be useful in city of Espoo point-of-view. Study cases include intersections, tram stop area and curve with high accident rate.

1. Nordenskiöldinkatu x Urheilukatu (Figure 18)

Figure 18 Nordenskiöldinkatu and Urheilukatu intersection (Helsingin karttapalvelu, 2018).

Nordenskiöldinkatu is a main street from Taka-Töölö to Alppila and Pasila. It has a speed limit of 50 km/h and its annual average daily traffic is about 17520 vehicles/day (Mannerheimintie–Reijolankatu). During the day about 241 trams use the street. Urheilukatu is a local street and its speed limit is 30 km/h. Its annual average daily traffic is 5890 veh/day from Savilankatu to Nordenskiöldinkatu and 3790 veh/day from Nordenskiöldinkatu to Reijolankatu. (Helsinki 2018.) Tram route 2 has service-interval of ten minutes and has a stop Kansaneläkelaitos on Nordenskiöldinkatu. The stop is one of the central interchanging points of the route. (HSL, 2018b). At the intersection, Nordenskiöldin katu has 2 traffic lanes for both directions, and separate lane for trams in the middle. Urheilukatu has one traffic lane for both directions. In addition, there is on- street parking on Urheilukatu. Nordenskiöldinkatu does not have dedicated left turn lanes.

The intersection is one with the highest tram accident rates in Helsinki. During the visit the intersection was under construction, and northern part of Urheilukatu was closed. The intersection will have bicycle lanes in the future (Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto, 2015). Accident numbers have increased during the last ten years (2007–2016). The typical accident at this intersection is a collision with a car when the car is turning left or making a U-turn. Most of the accidents (80 %) are property damage accidents but some have led to injuries (20%). Since 2006, there have been eight accidents, of which to were accidents with injuries. During the whole study period, 14 accidents have taken place in 36 this intersection. Eleven of them were while turning left, one was side-swipe and one while making a U-turn. Direction of reported accidents are showed in Figure 19 and accident points are showed in Figure 20.

Figure 19 Accidents at the intersection were mostly occurred while vehicles turned. In figure, reported accidents in years 2007–2016 (Yli-Seppälä, 2018).

Figure 20 Involved vehicles and directions on the top. On left, tram accidents and on right reported road accidents. The intersection has a high number of car-tram accidents. Most of the accidents are occurred during turns.

While turning left from Nordenskiöldinkatu there are several conflict points (Figure 21). Driver needs to focus on trams, cars driving straight, cars turning left from other direction and pedestrians. The intersection has traffic signals. However, the signal phasing is different from Mannerheimintie signal phasing, which may cause bunching at intersection area and turning left from western part of Nordenskiöldinkatu (at intersection) is difficult. In that case, driver may focus only on finding gap in the opposite traffic flow to cross the intersection and forget to check if a tram is coming from behind. In addition, the lack of dedicated left-turn lane or phase for turning vehicles, may achieve drivers to take higher risks and accept shorter gaps than she or he otherwise would accept. Drivers turning to left may also migrate to wait on tram tracks, to give way to traffic coming from behind which may lead to collision with a tram. During the site visit, the intergreen period was around 5 seconds, which is quite long period for intergreen.

Figure 21 Conflict points at Nordenskiöldinkatu x Urheilukatu intersection. Especially turning vehicles have many conflict points. Signalization is considered.

Helsinki has a new transportation plan for the area, which also considers the intersection. The new plan is showed in Figure 22. In the new plan, bicycle lanes are added, and the stop area is moved to western part of the intersection when it is nowadays in the eastern part. During the site visit, the signalization seemed to be the cause of challenges at the intersection. In addition, car drivers turning may not notice trams that are leaving or coming to the tram stop. The new plan does not improve significantly safety of left turns. Adding dedicated left turn lane, would require more space for the street and the turning traffic volumes might be quite low for that. If signal phases are similar than nowadays, there will be still problem with turning vehicles. In the surrounding network, turn restrictions are used a lot. Restricting left turns at the intersection would weaken the traffic connections. Warning signs and different surface on the tram tracks, at least on the stop area, would make tram more visible to other street users. However, the construction work and temporary traffic solutions effect the traffic and made it different to the situation during the accidents. 38

Figure 22 New transport plan of the intersection. The tram stop seems to be moved to the other side of the intersection. Left turns from Nordenskiöldinkatu to Urheilukatu seems to be still challenging.(Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto, 2015).

2. Helsinginkatu x Harjukatu (Figure 23)

Figure 23 Helsinginkatu and Harjukatu intersection (Helsingin karttapalvelu, 2018).

Helsinginkatu is an east-west regional collector street with AADT of 4390 veh/day. The percentage of the heavy vehicle traffic is 3,2 %. During a day, about 174 trams use the street. Harjukatu connects Aleksis Kiven katu and Helsinginkatu. Harjukatu is a local street with AADT of 3220 and percentage of heavy vehicles of 1,5 %. (Helsinki 2018.) At the intersection, Helsinginkatu has one traffic lane for both directions. Tramways are separated in the middle of the street but turning vehicles use tramway. Harjukatu has one traffic lane for both directions. In addition, both streets have on-street parking. Tram routes 1 and 8 operate on Helsinginkatu. Line 1 goes from Eira to Käpylä via Töölö and line 8 goes from Jätkäsaari to Arabia, also via Töölö. Both lines have service-interval of 10 minutes. (HSL, 2018b).

Number of accidents have increased during last ten years (1997–2016) from five to seven accidents. One of the accidents was pedestrian accident but all other were accidents including a tram and a car. While the intersection is unsignalized pedestrians have priority on pedestrian crossings. Seven accidents of twelve lead to injury, rest of them were property damage accidents. All car accidents were caused by left-turn, one of them was a U-turn. Accidents are showed in the Figure 24.

Figure 24 On left, tram accidents and on right road accidents

Some changes have been done in 2011. Taxi station took place from Helsinginkatu and bicycle lanes were built. Because of the taxi station, a pedestrian crossing was moved a little. Before these changes there were five accidents (1997–2011) and after the changes (2011–2016) seven accidents. Reasons for the change might be the bicycle lanes, which add conflict points and that way require more attention by the driver. In addition, taxis coming from east on Helsinginkatu may use U-turns to get the taxi station. Conflict point maps are made both for 1997–2011 and 2011–2016 (Figure 25).

Based on the accident data, the changes were not success in terms of traffic safety. Lane arrangement were a little unclear while turning left from Helsinginkatu to Harjukatu. Intersection is quite short and has many conflict points which make driving task more 40 difficult and requires extra attention from drivers. In addition, visibility is poor when entering Helsinginkatu from Harjutie.

Harjutori does not offer street connections but has parking spaces and work as turning space. Restricting left turns from Helsinginkatu to Harjukatu would improve traffic safety and would not weaken the traffic connections. Taxis coming from east may have difficulties to enter taxi station safely. One solution may have been to locate taxi station after Harjutori and before Pengerkatu, and not to restrict left turns from Helsinginkatu to Harjukatu. In that case, taxis could use Harjutori as turning space. However, there is still possibility that the location of U-turns would only move eastern on Helsinginkatu and accident locations with them.

Figure 25 Upper: Conflict points before the changes were made in 2011. Lower: Conflict points before the changes were made in 2011.

3. Mäkelänkatu x Suvannontie (Figure 26)

Figure 26 Mäkelänkatu and Suvannontie intersection (Helsingin karttapalvelu, 2018).

Mäkelänkatu has two traffic lanes, a bus lane and pedestrian ways both sides of the street. In addition, there is street parking at same elevation with pedestrian ways. In the middle of the street is row of lime trees and tramway. Mäkelänkatu is a main street with AADT of 20 260 (2015) and heavy vehicle traffic percentage of 11,3 %. Daily tram traffic includes 147 trams. Suvannontie is a local street, AADT is estimated to be in southern part 1590 veh/day and in northern part 740 veh/day. (Helsinki 2018.) The neighborhood has mostly housing with some offices and commercial activity. Tram routes 1 and 7 operate on Mäkelänkatu. Line 1 goes from Eira to Käpylä via Töölö and line 8 goes from Jätkäsaari to Arabia, also via Töölö. Both lines have service-interval of 10 minutes. Number of accidents have decreased during last ten years (1997–2016) from eleven to five accidents. One accident was accident with a cyclist and other with cars. Seven of accidents have led to injuries, of which three were during 2011–2014, other were property damage injuries. Three accidents were occurred while crossing the intersection over Mäkelänkatu, one because of a U-turn and all other while turning left from Suvannontie to Mäkelänkatu. Intersection has no signalization and Suvannontie have yield-signs in the both side of the Mäkelänkatu. Directions of accidents are showed in Figure 27 and accident points in Figure 28. 42

Figure 27 Reported accidents in years 2007–2016. Most typical accidents occured when a vehicle turned. Collisions lead to accidents with injuries (Yli-Seppälä, 2018).

The intersection has many conflict points (Figure 29). Driver need first to cross pedestrian crossing, then two drive lanes, tramways, other two drive lanes and pedestrian crossing. The space between drive lanes and tramway is narrow, and driver need to stop either on the drive lane or the tramway. In addition, visibility is poor, because of the buildings and street parking near the intersection. The share of heavy vehicles is also quite high on Mäkelänkatu.

Figure 28 On left tram accidents, on right reported road accidents.

Figure 29 Conflict points at Suvannontie - Mäkelänkatu intersection. Especially, while crossing the Mäkelänkatu there are many conflict points.

To improve safety, the number of conflict points would be needed to reduce. Signalization would be an alternative and specific signalization for turning vehicles might be necessary. Alternatively, matching the conflict points for a few periods could help. That way a driver would not have to try to find so long gap as now. Nowadays, a driver crossing the Mäkelänkatu, need to focus on ten conflict points at the time. By widening the space between tram tracks and drive lane, driver would need to take less conflict points into account. Nowadays, the space is so narrow that a car will be either on the tracks or the traffic lanes. Visibility is quite poor, when coming from Suvannontie (Figure 30) and the sight triangle is not wide. Warning lights of arriving tram, or even warning sound would be an alternative.

Figure 30 Visibility is limited while coming from Suvannontie. (Google StreetView, 2018).

44

City of Helsinki is preparing new street plans interlinked to renovation plan of Mäkelänkatu (Figure 31). Plan include new one-way bicycle paths and aim to improve tram traffic. Traffic safety is considered by limiting left-turns over rails and signalizing these turns. Number of pedestrian crossings are decreased and signalized in future. In addition, there will be bicycle lanes and the pedestrian crossing will be on the other side of the intersection. Number of traffic lanes will be decreased from three to two traffic lanes. In the plan, drivers coming from west and turning left from Mäkelänkatu to Suvannontie have a dedicated turn lane. Turning left from eastern Mäkelänkatu to south part of Suvannontie will be restricted.

Figure 31 Part of the new plan of Mäkelänkatu. (Helsinign kaupunkisuunnnitteluvirasto, 2018).

4. Mariankatu

Southern part of Mariankatu is classified as a local collector street. Aleksanterinkatu is east-west street combining Mannerheimintie and Meritullintori. There are no recent volume studies made either on Mariankatu or Aleksanterinkatu. During the site visit, left- turn from Meritullintori (E74) to Kanavakatu was forbidden and the traffic was guided to use Aleksanterinkatu-Mariankatu route. The Aleksanterinkatu from Mariankatu to Meritullintori was also one-way street to the West. At the location, there are three points where accidents occur: at the Aleksanterinkatu – Mariankatu intersection, in the curve in front of Päävartiotorni and at the Meritullintori-Päävartiotori intersection (Figure 32). Location was selected to be one of the cases because the unusual location, not at intersection but in a curve. Accident points are showed in Figure 33.

Meritullinkatu Aleksanterinkatu - Mariankatu

Left-turns are not allowed for vehicles. To get from Meritullinkatu to Kanavakatu white route is used.

Meritullintori- Päävartiotorni Kanavakatu

Figure 32 Meritullintori and Päävartiotorni intersection, Mariankatu curve and Aleksanterinkatu and Mariankatu intersection (Helsingin karttapalvelu, 2018).

Figure 33 On left reported tram accidents. On right all reported road accidents. Most of the accidents on the curve, seems to be accidents with trams.

46

In the curve, there have been 16 accidents 1997–2006. All of them have been property damage accidents with cars. Number of accidents have increased much during last ten years. During 1997–2006 there were only four accidents, when during 2007–2016 there have been twelve accidents. Nine of the accidents were reported as “21 - collision while encountering in the curve”, three were side-swipes and two accidents while turning left or right. Number of accidents have decreased at Aleksanterinkatu-Mariankatu intersection during last ten years remarkable. In total 17 accidents were reported 1997– 2006, of which four after 2006. All, except one, were reported as property damage accidents. Most of the accidents were occurred when turning left. In addition, some side- swipe collisions and collisions while reversing a car. At the intersection there are joker- lights however driver may have difficulties to notice them. Conflict points are showed in Figure 34.

Figure 34 Conflict points at Mariankatu - Aleksanterinkatu intersection. At the other intersection, Meritullintori-Päävartiotori, were reported ten accidents 1997– 2016. Six of them during 2007–2016 and rest four accident during 1997–2006. All of them were collisions between a car and a tram. Two of them led to injuries, rest were property damage accidents. Four of the accidents were caused while crossing the intersection, one was lane-change collision, two left-turns, one right-turn and two were reported as “other accident”. The intersection is signalized. During the visit there seemed to be no problems on the curve. Events in Presidential Palace may cause special arrangements on traffic, however in those cases traffic guidance should be provided. The curve has approximately width of 9 meters, which should be enough for vehicles. In addition, yellow center line separates directions clearly. However, if a car driver is not prepared for a tram and cut through the curve using the upcoming lane, incidents may occur. At Meritullintori-Päävartiotori intersection, the signalization seems not to have priority for trams which may lead to queues before the intersection and cause incidents on the curve. Mariankatu-Aleksanterinkatu intersection could be improved in terms of safety, by adding warning signs of trams and re-located the joker-lights so that driver most certainly see them.

5. Viides linja (Figure 35)

Figure 35 Viides linja (Helsingin karttapalvelu, 2018).

City of Helsinki executed a volume study at the intersection in 2017 and estimated AADT based on the results. Estimated traffic volumes are showed in Figure 36. (Helsinki n.d.) Tramlines 3 and 9 operate on Viideslinja. Line 3 operate from Kaivopuisto to Meilahti with service-interval of 10 minutes. Line 9 goes from Länsiterminaali to Ilmala, also with service-interval of 10 minutes.

Figure 36 AADT, volume study 2017 (Helsinki, n.d.). 48

During 1997–2016, eight accidents have taken place at the intersection. Three of them were pedestrian accidents and rest accidents including a car and a tram. One of the pedestrian accidents was a fatal accident, four of accidents led to injuries and three were property damage accidents. Two of pedestrian accidents took a place outside a pedestrian crossing (one fatal and one with injuries) and one on a pedestrian crossing. Other accidents were occurred while a vehicle turned and one when passenger get off a car. Six of the accidents happened 1997–2006 and two 2007–2016, fatal accident in 2009. Accident points are showed in Figure 37.

Figure 37 On left tram accidents, on right reported road accidents.

The intersection is complicated and there are no priorities. Turning left from Porthaniankatu is denied. There are several pedestrian crossings but during the site visit was noticed that instead of using them, people take shorter route through the intersection. Because of the lack of priorities, there are many conflict points, which are showed in figure 38. However, in the reality the number of conflict points are higher because of the pedestrian behavior. In addition, observing a tram can be difficult while there are already many directions and street users to focus on. Accessibility of crossing the street and the tram stops seemed to be difficult. During the site visit, an older pedestrian with a walker needed to go around the tram stop island because of the curb. In addition, some pedestrians hesitated on pedestrian crossing, when they did not first notice a tram coming. For safety improvements, tram should be more visible. Using different surface on tracks, or at least adding signs would help. Trams coming from Porthaniankatu are difficult to

observe, warning sounds would make it easier. However, use of warning sounds raise discussion of comfort, especially with local residents.

Figure 38 Conflict points at Porthaniankatu - Viides linja intersection

The location of pedestrian crossing in relation to the stop is a challenge. Trams coming to the stop from Porthaniankatu, stop after the pedestrian crossing which allows higher speeds for collisions with pedestrians. On the other hand, a tram leaving the stop to Porthaniankatu direction, may have collision with pedestrian, who is running to the street, behind a tram stopped on the other side of the stop. Pedestrian crossing the street may also only concentrate a tram on the stop and forget to beware of a tram coming from Porthaniankatu. It is also notable that trams have duty to yield pedestrians, because of the legal power of pedestrian crossings. Signalization for pedestrians on the point would be sensible, in terms of safety. During the site visit, a role of the northern part of Porthaniankatu came up. Based on the volume study (Helsinki, n.d.), traffic volume is quite low. However, vehicles going from northern part of Porthaniankatu to southern part of same street increase the risk for accidents. Based on the network studies made restricting the right-turns from northern Porthaniankatu would decrease traffic conflicts and would not weaken the network. The intersection is showed in Figure 39.

50

1

Figure 39 The intersection has no priorities and it includes two intersections close to each other, which makes walking and driving challenging. In addition, driving from northern part of Porthaniankatu to southern part of difficult.

4.2 Gothenburg

The length of the tram network in Gothenburg is 161 km and 16 tram lines are operated in Gothenburg. The total number of tram stops is approximately 132 and the commercial speed of trams are inside the city center area 17 km/h and outside the city center 26 km/h. Annual passengers on tram lines were 118,9 million in 2016 (Göteborg 2016). The average number of reported events by year was 97 events per year 2013–2017. In relation to the annual passenger numbers, it would mean 1 event per 1,2 million passengers. However, it should be remembered that the accidents are not typically directed to passengers but other street users.

Accidents were studied from whole study period 2013–2017. Most of the reported accidents, 73 percent of all accidents, caused no or small injuries. Percentage of accidents with serious injuries were 7 percent of all accidents and the percentage of fatal accidents were not statistically remarkable. The total number of reported accidents was 485. Of these 343 were reported as slight injuries, 87 as moderate injuries, 31 as serious injuries and two were reported as fatal accidents. The share between severity of all tram accidents is showed in Figure 40.

Figure 40 Accident severities in relation to transport modes.

Accident data represents well the normal distribution in terms of severity. Basically meaning, that the more severe accident, the rarer event it is. Most of the reported accidents were classified as accidents with slight injuries, meaning property damages or small injuries. Those accidents included typically a car and a tram. During 2013–2017 was reported 343 accidents with property damage. These accidents with slight injuries were the most common accidents with all street users. The percentage of accidents with slight injuries were 63 % with both pedestrians and cyclists, and a bit higher, 77 % with car drivers. The percentage of accidents with moderate injuries was also quite similar with all street users. When studying the more severe accidents, accidents with serious injuries and fatal accidents, clear difference between cars and light traffic was noticed.

52

Heat maps were made of accident data. Accidents were centered especially to the city center. Because there were only two fatal accidents, they were added as points to the map. That way they did not distort the accident distribution on the map. A closer look was taken into the hot spot in the center and in addition, both fatal accident locations were studied separately. Both fatal accident locations, were had also some accidents with slight injuries. Fatal accidents were located on a pedestrian crossing and nearby a tram stop. Accident points and heat map are showed in Figure 41.

Figure 41 Fatal accidents and heat map of all reported tram accidents.

Most of the severe accidents occurred with pedestrians; 16 percent of all pedestrian accidents were classified as accidents with serious injuries and 2 % as fatal accidents. Accidents with cyclists need to be read carefully because they are even rarer than accidents with pedestrians or cars. A bit more than tenth of all cyclist accidents, 12 %, were accidents with serious injuries. Car accidents were typically not so serious, and only 2 % of reported car accidents, were classified as accidents with serious injuries. The total number of fatal accidents were two, and both were accidents with pedestrians.

Some car accidents were classified as accidents with unknown severity. Most of the accidents were accidents with cars and accidents with pedestrians were most common after accidents with cars. Accidents with busses were reported separately, and number of those were tenth of accidents. Number of accidents with cyclists, were quite low, as well as number of accidents with motorbikes. In addition, four accidents with trucks and one accident with tractor were reported. The accident mode share seems to be quite similar to shares in Helsinki. Percentage of pedestrian accidents were approximately ten percent higher in Gothenburg than in Helsinki, and comparably percentage of car accidents (cars and busses) were ten percent lower than in Helsinki. Modal share of reported accidents is showed in Figure 42.

2013-2017

8 % 1 % 25 %

2 %

64 %

Pedestrian Cyclist Car Motorbike Bus

Figure 42 Modal share of reported accidents.

Strada reports do not include information field about the driver’s movement or directions during the accident. Description field may include information but not always and for getting the information, descriptions need to be studied case by case. However, the most common reasons for collisions between trams and cars seemed to be occurred during left turns or u-turns. In addition, some rear-end collisions were mentioned. As earlier mentioned accidents are rare events, and the more severe the more random they typically are. There are no clear relations between fatal and accidents with most severe injuries. Two accidents with serious injuries were located at the same tram stop area (stop Hagakyrkan). According to the heatmap the highest accident rates seems to be centered around the platforms. Platform areas have typically fences which prevent pedestrians crossing rails outside of designed pedestrian crossings. Crossings are typically signalized, and z-crossings are used. Pedestrian crossings over tracks are mainly unmarked, while crossing over the car lanes have marked pedestrian crossings. The number of tram-tram accidents were remarkable higher in Gothenburg than in Helsinki or Dublin. These accidents took a place typically at tram stops and were rear-end accidents. In addition, 147 cyclist’s accidents were reported. Those accidents did not include trams, but they occurred on the tram tracks. Those accidents included 8 accidents with serious injuries, 65 accidents with moderate injuries and 47 accidents with slight injuries. 54

4.3 Dublin

Dublin differs from Helsinki and Gothenburg as a case city several ways. It has modern tramway system, with modern trams, higher speeds and different accident data collection system. When Helsinki and Gothenburg represent northern countries’ traffic behavior, transport environment and old tram system, Dublin represents the modern tramway system and left-hand traffic. Dublin has two tram lines: LUAS green and LUAS red. Line map is showed in Figure 43. The length of the red line is 21 km and the length of green line 17 km. The total number of tram stops is 54, of which 36 are in red line and 22 on green line. Annual passengers on red line were 20 million and on green line 15 million in 2012. Commercial speed is up to 22 kph to 27 kph, and the maximum speed is 70 kph which differs much from speeds of Gothenburg and Helsinki’s trams. Luas Cross City is a new line which is currently extension to green line (LUAS 2012).

Figure 43 Line map of Dublin tram (LUAS, 2018).

Accidents with pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles were studied separately. The share between different modes and accidents was similar than in Helsinki and Gothenburg. The total number of reported accidents and incidents, including a contact with another street user, was 355 events. The average number of reported events by year was 65 events per year. In relation to the annual passenger numbers, it would mean 1 event per 0,53 million passengers. However, it should be remembered that the accidents are not typically directed to passengers but other street users. Most of the reported accidents were accidents between motor vehicles and tram, the number of pedestrian accidents were lower than motor vehicle accidents, but they were more severe. The number of accidents with cyclists was the lowest, in relation to pedestrian and motor vehicle accidents. However, percentage of accidents with cyclists seemed to be higher than in Gothenburg or in Helsinki. Mode share in accidents is showed in Figure 44. Seven of the pedestrian accidents were classified to be “serious”, and one of them led to fatality. Descriptions of accidents told that three of these accidents were suspected suicide attempts. Based on the descriptions, accidents that was not labelled to minor or serious accidents were accidents with no consequences. Descriptions showed also that 13 of accidents included intoxicated pedestrian and two accident had specific notation that headphones played a role in the accidents.

Mode share

1 %

39 %

53 %

7 %

Pedestrian Cyclist Motor vehicle Infra

Figure 44 Modal share of accidents. Data has also class for collisions with obstacles of infra, which is included.

Seven percent of all accidents were accidents with cyclists. Nine of these accidents were classified into minor accidents and rest of were unclassified. Based on the descriptions, rest of the accidents were accidents with no injuries and no need for medical assistance. The percentage of accidents with cyclists is remarkably higher in Dublin than in Helsinki or Gothenburg. The most likely reason for the difference is the accident reporting. In Helsinki and Gothenburg accident data includes only accidents that are reported to police, while in Dublin also small accidents and incidents are reported. In addition, the share of accident severity in case of Helsinki and Gothenburg shows that most cycling accidents are accidents with injuries. While reading the accident descriptions of cycling incidents and accidents in Dublin was noticed that many of them were reported as “brushed contact with cyclists”, meaning that a tram was touched for instance the clothing of the cyclists. In these cases, cyclists were typically left the scene without healthcare or meeting with police, which proves that most likely all these kinds of events are not recorded in Helsinki or Gothenburg. 56

Most of the accidents included a motor vehicle, of which 143 were classified minor accidents, three serious accidents and rest were non-categorized. Accident types were “brushed contact vehicle” (20 %) and “contact vehicle” (80 %). Typically, accidents between motor vehicles and trams took a place at intersections and were caused by vehicle drivers breaching red light. Accidents occurred also when drivers breached the swept path or made right turns. According to the descriptions of the motor vehicle accidents, over 60 percent were caused by breaching red lights. All these accidents were minor accidents. Approximately 10 percent of accidents were caused by breaching swept path and one of these accidents was serious. Other accidents were mostly collisions while turning right, which equates left turns while studying Helsinki and Gothenburg.

5. Discussion 5.1 Safety in transport planning

Safety should be considered in many different steps of the planning process. Safety should be incorporated into vision statement, goals and objectives, system performance measures, technical analysis and alternative projects and strategies. A vision statement includes desired characteristics of community’s transport system in the future. Visions typically include notation of safe environment or safe transport system (Washington, et al., 2016). A vision for a new tram line could be to provide easy, safe and efficient transport services. In this point, legislation, jurisdiction of the transport plan and stakeholders’ responsibility of safety should be considered. In vision, planners should identify possible safety problems, and present them. All transport modes and effects should be considered both on personal level and from society’s perspective. (Washington, et al., 2016). Incorporating safety into the goals and objectives, are derived to the vision. Every planner needs to check that goals and objectives include same safety targets than jurisdiction in transport plan. Goals and objectives can influence also themselves, how they can be achieved. For instance, goal to provide safe tram environment can include more goals inside the general goal, for instance zero death caused by trams could be more specific goal. Each goal effect how other goals can be achieved. Goals and objectives guide more precise the planning process, they are basically tools for identify and reach the wanted result.

Safety performance can be monitored by using performance measures. Performance measures are used to control the characteristics of transportation system performance and to define how desired goals and objectives are being achieved (Washington, et al., 2016). Concerning tramways safety, the goal could be to decrease traffic and injuries caused by trams. For instance, in Texas, performance measures, such as mileage death rate (deaths / 100 million vehicle miles travelled (VMT)), vehicular traffic accident rate (accidents / 100 million VMT) and traffic accident injury rate (accidents / 100 million VMT) were used (Washington, et al., 2016). In Finland, typically accidents per line kilometers are used for bus safety studies. However, in studies need to consider the environment and urban structure. In dense areas with high pedestrian traffic volumes and many intersections accident rates will most likely to be higher, than in areas with low pedestrian traffic and less conflict points and intersections. Performance measure could for instance, take the number of intersections into account, while studying accidents. Goal can be more specific and the used performance measures more precise. Goal can be for instance reducing certain type of accidents or reducing accidents of certain street users.

A concept called Vision Zero is used in Sweden. This vision was introduced in 1995 and focuses on the prevention of accidents, with a basic idea that no-one should die or be seriously injured in traffic (Trafikverket, 2017). While planning totally new transport system, as in case of Espoo, goal should be same kind as Swedish zero vision. However, existence of performance measures does not help itself. To be useful, performance measures should be explained to transportation and enforcement professionals, as well as decision makers and general public. The number of used safety performance measures should be limited, that way monitoring the system and development will be easier to organize and implement. Safety performance measures which are typically used in transportation planning are divided to crash count-related, normalized accident rate performance measures, unit costs and cost-effectiveness measures and alcohol and drug involved crashes. Each performance measure gives valuable information. However, they 58 can be used for different target groups and for different purposes. Unit costs and costs- effectiveness measures are important to decision makers, while crash-count related measures may be more valuable for planners.

Technical analysis is one of the most used steps in the planning framework. The main idea is to avoid problems and improve the system if it is possible. Studying safety-related data and using analyses or different tools to understand them is most typical approach while implementing technical analysis in terms of safety. A planner needs to identify what kind of data is needed and what kind of analyses are needed to use. While planning a new system, the data is limited. For instance, in Espoo case, there is no existing tram networks which could provide data, and there is not database for tram accidents. However, by identifying tram safety challenging factors, planners can think those carefully. Case cities, and other studies, point out what kind of places are typically challenging in terms of safety. Even though Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin have their own transport systems, their own networks and traffic culture, they all have similar accident types at similar kind of places based on the accident data. For instance, turns over the tracks (left-turns, or in Dublin right-turns) were identified challenging in all case cities. However, this kind of universal safety problem does not just tell that at these kinds of points there will be problems also in future. These kinds of problematic locations should awake planners and designers to think carefully how these accidents could be prevented by planning and design. In further planning, planners can identify challenging locations, where traffic simulations, traffic volume studies, as well as conflict point studies can be used. The most important thing is that planners know the possible challenging locations and are prepared to react and make changes if needed after implementation.

In planning, there are always costs and benefits. Those costs and benefits take a place in different phases in planning and implementation. Minimizing costs at the planning and instruction phase, may cause higher costs later. For instance, a new street or tramway will cause its major costs in the early construction phase and then experience an increasing level of benefits over time (Washington, et al., 2016). In other hand, if safety is not considered in the early constructions phase, the high costs may occur later, when accidents start to happen. For instance, in Finland a death in traffic has computational value of 2,77 million euro to the state (Trafi, 2016), which is already economically remarkably higher cost than for instance pavement markings or warning lights near a crossing point.

Transport systems and environment change all the time which requires constant development also in planning. Safety can be integrated into the planning process different ways. However, the earlier safety can be considered the better and safer system can be planned and implemented. Safety characteristics should be monitored in the system to determine the trends and causes, both in accidents overall and fatality. Identifying the basic problems and challenges, root causes for accidents, is requirement for making any improvements. A planner should be aware of experienced challenges, to avoid same mistakes that have been already made. Cooperation plays a big role, especially when implementing a new system. In Finland, several cities are planning their first modern tramways. Collaboration and exchanging experiences are important not only to planners, but also for finding continuous approach to design and traffic management. For instance, creating continuous marking systems for the whole state level, would make tram system easier to understand to users.

Data collection of accidents, conflict point studies and surveying street-users are a great start to improve the safety. However, none of those methods does not improve safety by their existence. As noticed in Helsinki case, versatile data collection does not itself influence on planning and designing. Continuous and well-organized cooperation with planners, street designers and operators should be used for improving traffic safety and avoiding repeating same mistakes in planning and design. The tools and methods work as a part of process and development of them should be flexible. Each planning phase should interact with each other, generally, but also in terms of safety. Before starting collect accident data, the need for it should be considered. Why data is needed, for what and how it will be used? It is not necessary to collect every detail of an accident if the information has no value itself. However, it should be kept in mind all the time, that data itself is not capable to offer full information of reasons and elements of accidents. Good data gathering allows (Bertrand & Fontaine, 2016):

• Making a wider analysis, concentrating on more than one network, • Making valuable statistics, and • Facilitating standardization for data and updating it.

Each report is written by using one person’s point of view. Knowledge of the location, understanding of the locals’ behavior and knowledge of surrounding land-use, requires further studies, site visits and discussions with local people. However, data can offer great base for further studies. It can allow a better understanding both by operators and researchers. Data is also a tool for evaluation and prevention of accidents. The STRMT (Service Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et des Guidés) proposes, with the national workgroup of operators, that database for each event could include (Blancheton & Fontaine, 2013):

• Network identification • Type of event • Temporal situation • Location using coordinates • Type of place • Specific aspects for railway traffic • Topography and railroad speed • Environment of the accident • Number of persons involved in the accident and number of injuries or fatalities. • Consequences for material: infrastructure and property of involved. • Consequences on the operation • Statement of the system parameters and circumstances during the accident.

As accident data from case cities showed, there is not consistent systems or requirements which information need to be collected. As a traffic safety point of view, the collected accident data does not need to be comparable to other cities accident data. The more important feature of the data is that it offers solid information about the accidents and offers the basis for further analysis. Bertrand and Fontaine have collected also some proposals what accident data collection should include and how it should be arranged. Their proposals include partly same factors than Blancheton and Fontaine’s (2013) but are a bit more specific.

60

According to Bertrand and Fontaine (2016) a good database includes:

• Identification and location o Information of the vehicle and line. Information of the stop or intersection. o Precise address with house number, coordinates, map and overhead pole. o Information of intersection type (roundabout, left-turn, possible traffic signals), pedestrian crossing, stop or running section. Multiple choice can be used to make answering easy. o Type of alignment (separated or mixed traffic, pedestrian area, lane shared with bus) and type of segregation (physical or visual). • Environment o Weather and road conditions (Fog, snow/ice, rain/storm, leaves on tracks) o Operational disruption: temporary speed limits, maintenance, and demonstration, roadwork. • Actors o Identification of tram vehicle and driver o Involved persons or vehicles and witnesses • Description of accident o Drawing of vehicle and persons movements, signal type (dynamic/static) • Direction of travel (track 1 or 2 for tram), street (for other involved party); o Final position of involved part of the tram o Interviews with tram driver, car driver and possible witnesses o Classification of accident o Causes, such as left turn, distraction, red light crossing, lack of visibility. In addition, influence of geometry, obstacles, other traffic, weather and other conditions should be described. o Description of any unusual facts. Data should give clear picture of accident and its causes after years. • Technical data o Data from black box (red box), such as speed during the accident, emergency brakes, bell, turning signal o Closed-circuit television (CCTV) o Switches and trackside signaling systems o Traffic lights state (phases). • Consequences o Severity of injuries (light, medium, serious, fatal) o Severity of damages (light, medium, serious) for vehicles and infrastructure. o Operational consequences. o Classification for consequences.

In terms of planning and design, coordinates, intersection type, operational disruption, drawing of movements, causes and severity would offer the most important information. The severity of accidents gives the information if closer studies of design implications for traffic safety need to be done immediately. Operational disruption is crucial for later studies, the possible street works or problems with traffic signals are difficult to find out later. Drawing of vehicle and person movements gives information of the more precise location. Causes of the accidents would give a great information if accident is caused by human error or by other reason, and if the design or planning has something to do with it.

In addition, a picture of the accident location would give great information of the circumstances at that moment the accident has occurred. During the more precise analyses of the accident data, one challenge was that there was no information what kind of traffic arrangements there were during the accident. Especially, while studying the accidents occurred years ago, finding the current circumstances required time taking detective work.

Data collection should be organized so that it is easy to fulfill. In addition, liability distribution should be considered. Police collect typically detailed data. However, police do not consider all cases, especially accidents with small injuries or damages are not always reported to police. A challenge is to provide same kind of information also of accidents which are not reported to police. Tram drivers may be used. However, the evaluations are not completely neutral and in some cases workload of drivers may increase. In addition to how to collect data, it is important to consider how to express the information. For getting a general view of accidents, every detail is not needed. Data in table format is easy to manage and use as a basis for further studies. For full safety management, recording, monitoring and analyzing accidents is not enough. Near misses can provide crucial information and help preventing accidents. Other tools exist or can be applied to offer better insight of the risks and driver’s behavior. Tram drivers use defensive driving techniques and are looking out other street users all the time to prevent collisions. Emergency brakes are often in reaction to these third parts’ acts. Locations with high frequency of emergency brakes, give information about increased risk of accidents (Bertrand & Fontaine, 2016).

In all case cities, many pedestrian accidents took place outside pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian behavior can be approached by two ways. Behavior may be attempted to understand, or the unwanted behavior can be attempted to prevent. For understanding the pedestrian behavior, desire lines should be considered carefully already at early stages of planning. Land-use guide pedestrians to choose their routes, typically minimizing the distances. In addition, poorly functioning signalization, may lead pedestrians to choose other crossing points. Pedestrians typically value short distances, few crossing points and small traffic volumes. Same factors should be considered also while planning tram stops and choosing their locations. While pedestrian crossings aim to guide where pedestrians cross the streets, stops may guide pedestrians to find their own shorter routes. Unwanted crossings may be attempted to prevent by using fences at the points where crossings are not wanted. However, fences are not always visually attractive and may make pedestrians feel moving at the area difficult and unpleasant. Desire lines should be considered also while planning networks for other transport modes. U-turns and left-turns can lead to severe injuries and were still quite general in all case studies. U-turns may be caused by poor guidance, drivers mistake or then as some shorter ways to destination. For instance, in Helsinki, at the intersection Helsinginkatu-Harjutie, taxi drivers prefer U-turns while they are entering to the taxi station. In planning, this kind of placements of taxi stops should be considered carefully. Site visits at the planning locations help planners and designers to understand the space and possibility for movement better.

While studying the accident data from case cities, it was noticed that turns over the tramway tracks were problematic. In Helsinki case, it was noticed that severe accidents with vehicles were caused in this kind of traffic situations. A dedicated turning lane with signalization may be one solution. However, if traffic volumes are low it is not always the most reasonable solution. Thus, it is important that planner consider the network in larger scale while making decisions. Traffic can be directed to use other routes, which do 62 not have left turns over tracks if needed. While aiming for perpendicular crossing the visibility is better. An example is showed in Figure 45.

Figure 45 Accident data from case cities showed that left turns over tracks lead severe accidents and are problematic for traffic safety. Left turns over tracks, especially without traffic signals with own phase for turning traffic and dedicated lanes should be avoided. Thus, planner should consider network in larger scale while planning the intersections.

As it was seen from Helsinki case, many accidents locations had in common that the visibility was limited. Thus, already at early planning stages, attention should be paid to visibility and sight triangles at intersections. Especially, when planning new areas, relation between tramways and building masses, should be considered carefully. In Helsinki, dense city structure challenge visibility, especially when vehicles join to collector roads from local streets. At unsignalized intersections, stop signs could be used to make drivers cross the intersection more carefully. Oversized signs may improve their power, when drivers notice them more easily. If there is no sight triangle for drivers because buildings block the views, the possibility for collision is higher. At early planning phases, space reservations play a big role. A planner should think the space reservations precise enough already when making rough plans. The planning solutions which have effects on safety, such as lane width, especially on curves, visibility and safety zones, require more space. After a planner has decided wisely space reservations, it is a designer’s task to use all the space wisely.

As noticed, in Helsinki case, each intersection contains several potential conflict points. The more conflict points there are, the more difficult intersection area is for the street users. As it was seen in Mäkelänkatu-Suvannontie intersection, joining to the traffic or crossing the intersection is especially difficult if in addition to many conflict points, the sight distances and traffic controls are poor. The possibility of occurring conflicts can be reduced through the provision of proper sight distances and appropriate traffic controls (AASHTO, 2001). The dimensions of sight triangles are based on the design speed of the intersection, the type of traffic control, grades of the streets and the street width. Sight triangles can be divided into approach and departure sight triangles (figure 46) (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Height and position of the object should be considered. For passenger vehicles, is typically assumed that the driver’s eye height is approximately 1,08 m and height of an approaching vehicle is 1,33 m (AASTHO, 2001). Heavy vehicles, such as trucks and busses require larger sight triangles than passenger cars (FDOT, 2010). In

design of tramway, sight triangles should be considered in terms of vehicles entering from smaller streets to intersection. Design speeds of other traffic and trams should be considered carefully. In addition, it should be noticed that even though design speeds of trams may be quite low at intersections, the stopping distances will be longer than cars. For instance, on speed of 30 km/h stopping distance of tram is almost double to car stopping distance (HSL, 2015). In addition, the terrain can influence on the tram speeds. For instance, in Mäkelänkatu, trams coming from north drive downhill when traffic speed and the stopping distance may increase. At Mäkelänkatu-Suvannontie intersection, it was also noticed that trees beside to the tramway and on-street parking affected on visibility. Thus, obstacles blocking the view, such as buildings, parked vehicles, hedges, streets and the terrain itself, should be removed or lowered if practical (AASTHO, 2001).

A Approach Sight Triangles

B Departure Sight Triangles

Figure 46 Approach and departure sight triangles. B illustrates the length of the sight triangle (leg). A illustrates the distance from the major street, along the minor street. (Adopted from AASHTO 2001.) The dimensions are based on the design speed of the intersection, the type of traffic control, grades of the streets and the street width.

As it was seen from Helsinki case, collisions at intersections are potentially related to sight triangle restrictions. Thus, sight triangles for an intersection with no control should be provided. Sight triangles for an unsignalized intersection should allow the driver of a vehicle to see an approaching vehicle and have enough time to stop before entering the intersection. In case of signalized intersections, there are no required sight triangles in the Green Book. However, some conditions should be considered. First vehicles from different approaches should be able to see each other. Vehicles, which are turning left, should have sufficient sight distance to select gaps in oncoming traffic and complete the maneuver (Fitzpatrick, et al., 2005). As it was seen in Mäkelänkatu-Suvannonkatu, the intersection areas can be wide, including many traffic lanes and transport modes. At this 64 intersection, it was also noticed that there is not enough space for car drivers between tramway and traffic lanes, meaning that sight triangle should consider the whole intersection area. However, observing all other street users at one time is challenging, if not impossible. The better solution would be dividing the intersection into passages, meaning that there would be clear point and space where car driver would stop. In this case, sight tringles could be provided to these two points: to the point, where car driver enter the intersection, and to the point where car driver stop before tramway.

According to the accident data, remarkable percentage of pedestrian accidents take place at tram stops or crossing near them. Prioritizing walking access to stops with direct routes and convenient, low-delay pedestrian crossings are requirements for a safe system. (NACTO, 2016). In addition, In Helsinki and Gothenburg some accidents were occurred while pedestrians were trying to catch a tram and underestimated the speed of the tram and thought they have time for crossing. Winter conditions may also lead to incidents and accidents, when snow or ice make platforms slippery. Pedestrian movements are sometimes difficult to predict. For instance, some accidents were reported where pedestrian is walking along the tramway and suddenly cross the street outside a pedestrian crossing when a tram is coming from behind. These accidents typically include distracted pedestrians, using earphones or phone, or having a dog on leash (Millot, 2015).

Safe traffic environment is not only a result of good design. However, good planning and good design are crucial basis to safe traffic environment. Traffic safety is tightly in relation to traffic psychology, which requires planner to have basic understanding of street users’ behavior. Planner need to understand that street users valuate used time and distance, sometimes even over the traffic rules. In planning, these unwanted behavior models should be identified, tried to prevent but still considered in design. A model to consider safety elements which also consider wrong behavior is showed in Figure 47 (Schröter, 2011).

Figure 47 Safety elements are a sum of wanted and unwanted behavior. Planners and designers should notice both (Schröter, 2011).

5.2 Visibility and separation of modes

Design processes should consider that there are always several street users and several street user groups (ORR, 2006). Typically, there is no situations where pedestrian or cars interact only with trams. There are almost always other street users in addition. As the accident data from Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin showed, almost all accidents take place at intersections, crossings or areas where pedestrians interact with trams. Car drivers may need to focus on other car traffic, trams, busses, pedestrians and cyclists; turning vehicles, crossing vehicles and vehicles going in the same direction. Planning and design should focus on street users’ point of views all the time. Every solution, from routes in networks to placement of a traffic sign, should be done by thinking how street users will explore them. A planner should ask to who, why and what she or he is planning or designing. For instance, eye-heights, traffic behavior and ability to create own paths differs between pedestrians and car drivers.

Visibility is a crucial factor when talking about safe environment. Trams are operated by sight which requires infrastructure design that allows safe and comfortable driving (UITP, 2016). Infrastructure need to be clear and easy to understand for every street user, so that tram drivers can rely on safety and use design speeds while driving. Operating by sight allows short headways and does not require expensive systems (Kuronen, 2018b). Especially at intersections most of the accidents happen because of street user has not observed another vehicle. Good visibility makes observation easier and is a condition to safe environment. However, observation includes also many behavior factors, and only the visibility does not solve every challenge. Some solutions have been found useful to create functional and good visibility offering environments. In addition to visibility of trams, the visibility of tramways is important. The clarity of road section prevents accidents and decreases the risk that other street users end up on the tramways at places they should not (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Visibility of tramways can be improved by material and color of the tracks, texture of the surroundings or markings (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Visibility considers not only sight triangles but also lighting, such as in- pavement lights, pedestrian-scaled lights and streetlights. Perception of trams can be improved by lighting, headlights and color of trams. Bright colors on the trams allow easier identification of vehicles in the cityscape. In addition, running with lights on and the use of horns in challenging points to announce coming vehicle, makes perception better (Novales & Teixeira, 2015).

One challenge noticed in Helsinki, at Helsinginkatu-Harjukatu intersection, considered the illegibility of the intersection. While observing the traffic, it was noticed that turning route from eastern Helsinginkatu to Harjukatu was not clear. Tramway was a bit higher than traffic lanes, which lead some drivers to find path using pedestrian crossing. This kind of illegibility and possibility to street users understand planned lines wrong should be avoided. Thus, safe environment requires unity in decisions and coherent design. Using same colors and materials at same kind of places, make driving and moving in the environment easier to all street users. For instance, in Bergen, at every crossing with motor vehicle traffic was used red asphalt and pedestrian crossings with grey asphalt (Figure 48). Some examples of use of colors, markings and materials on the tracks and surroundings are showed in Figure 49. 66

Figure 48 Design from Bergen. Same colors are used same way in the whole city. (Picture: Hansson, et al., 2011).

Grenoble Lyon

FigureZaragoza 49 Clarity is one of the most important factors atLyon intersections in terms of safety. Different materials, colors and markings for different street sections and users make environment clear. In addition, bollards and signs can be used to guide street users.

Different countries have different policy and approach to tramways. Some countries pay special attention to protection and some countries aim to have more integrated system. The approach using protection can be closer to approach of heavy rail. Protection can be reached using fences and barriers, having right-of-way of Category B (separated) and even Category A (controlled) (Vuchic, 1999). More integrated systems aim to have an easier coexistence with pedestrians and cyclists in the city center. The capacity and adequate speed of trams need to be still guaranteed. More integrated system has right-of- way of Category B and sometimes Category C (shared). Both styles can provide

functional and safe environment with good capacity and results. However, it requires that the citizens understand the priority rules, general behavior in that traffic environment and culture. When choosing approach, the history and tradition of trams in the country should be considered (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). In Finland there is no history with modern tramways with higher speeds. In that case it is important to have continuous approach with different cities, especially at Helsinki region, so that using trams will be easy and clear.

While using the same material for tramways and traffic lanes, there is a risk that street users may not observe the existence of tramways. Especially, when people go to areas they are not familiar with, they may not beware of trams. Thus, legibility should be considered in design. Even though street users may not be familiar with the traffic system and they may not expect trams, they should be capable to see easily that there is tramway. Planning principles of both Raide-Jokeri and Tampere Tramway has recommended the use of different surface materials and colors. Street environment should provide information about the presence of trams in the area. Information can be provided by using signs, surface delineation and maximized sightlines. Legibility considers also the clarity of tram environment and infrastructure. For instance, at areas with high pedestrian volumes at nighttime, special attention should be paid in lightning. For instance, in Amsterdam, the lights were set into the footway to highlight a tramway in a shared surface street (Figure 50). In Northern countries, lightning should be considered at areas with high pedestrian volumes also during daytime because of the darkness.

Figure 50 Lightning in the pavement helps pedestrians to notice tramways (Khambata & Tong, 2009).

Routing of tram tracks needs to consider the traffic requirements and vehicle dynamics. Tram tracks can be situated by using in-street track formation or separate track formation. In-street tracks are typically selected when designing dense areas, with not much space. The mixed traffic on tracks limit design possibilities, for instance by surface materials. Closed surfaces, such as asphalt, concrete or pavement, must be used while there is mixed traffic. The separate track formation requires its own place while tramways are separated from other traffic. Separation is done with positioning and construction type using “fixed barriers”, such as curbs, railings and hedges (VDV, 2016). While using separate track formation, tram tracks can be situated in middle position or in lateral arrangement. In lateral arrangement, tram traffic goes on the side of other traffic. In middle position, tram traffic goes in the middle of other traffic (Figure 51). Both alternatives have some 68 advantages and disadvantages. Tram tracks in the middle position, offer short dislocation for pedestrians, traffic situation can be clearer and simpler at intersections and it does not outline location of trees and parking so much (Johansson, et al., 2012). Tram tracks in lateral arrangement, offer more flexibility with stops and temporary stops are easier to arrange (Johansson, et al., 2012). In addition, there are less conflict points both for pedestrians and drivers. However, on-street parking cannot be arranged, loading cars in side of the buildings next to tramway may not be easy and intersections can be complicated while tram needs to turn (Johansson, et al., 2012).

Figure 51 On left, tram has middle position and on right, lateral arrangement. Pictures from Barcelona and Valencia. (Beilinson, 2018).

Clearance need to be defined based on the traffic speeds. For lower speeds, under 20 km/h, free space of d > 10 is enough, and for higher speeds free space should be over 20 m. Clearances are showed in Figure 52 (STRMGT, 2012).

Figure 52 Clearance zone for intersections. Red zone width (tram width + 1,5 m for both sides) and length d depend on traffic speeds. (Adopted from STRMTG, 2012).

5.3 Intersections

As accident data from case cities showed, most of the tram accidents take place at intersections. With many different transport modes interacting and crossing with each other, there are many conflict points. The more conflict points there are, the higher possibility for collisions and accidents there is. With good quality design and traffic management, it is possible to lower the number of conflict points and decrease the risk of accidents. As it was seen at Nordenskiöldinkatu-Urheilukatu intersection, each intersection has in addition to the actual physical intersection their functional area. At this intersection was noticed that some problems were caused by the next intersection. Thus, intersection design should consider not only the actual physical intersection but also the functional area of the intersection. The functional area consists of perception-reaction distance, maneuver distance and queue-storage distance (Fitzpatrick, 1991). Especially these queue-storage areas would be important to consider carefully in planning and traffic signal design.

Mäkelänkatu-Suvannontie intersection showed the problematic of long crossing and difficulty of finding gap to cross the traffic lanes. Many accidents are caused by misevaluation of gaps and time to have to join or cross the traffic. Unsignalized intersections do not give positive sign or control to the driver. Driver’s task is to decide when it is safe to enter the intersections. Therefore, the driver must make decisions about when, where and how to complete a required movement based on the driver’s perceptions of distance, velocity and the performance of another driver’s vehicle. This process is known as gap acceptance (TRB, 1997). Gap acceptance is relevant for operational aspects and traffic safety. Critical gap and follow-on time are two fundamental factors of gap acceptance. Critical gap equals the minimum time gap in the priority stream which driver is ready to accept for crossing or entering major street. The longer driver tries to find the gap, the shorter she or he will accept the critical gap to be, which naturally increase the risk of misevaluation and collisions. Follow-on time equals time gap between two subsequent vehicles from the minor street while entering the conflict area of the intersection (TRB, 1997). Gap acceptance is showed in Figure 53.

Figure 53 Gap acceptance. Driver wait to find gap to enter the intersection. S1 equals to distance between stop line and conflict line and L describes the length of the vehicle. In addition, the speed of the vehicle and transport mode need to be considered. Cross time can be calculated S1+L / vehicle speed. (Adopted from Qu, et al., 2014).

70

In gap acceptance theory, drivers are assumed to be consistent and homogenous. A consistent driver is expected to behave the same way every time at similar situations. Drivers’ homogeneity means that all drivers are expected to behave same way (Troutbeck & Brilon, 1997). However, both critical gaps and follow-on times differ from time to time, from driver to driver and between intersections, traffic situations and types of movements (TRB, 1997). Multiple factors, such as driver gender, age, passengers, time of day and presence of queue effect on driver’s behavior and accepted gaps (Tupper, et al., 2011). Driver’s risk perception changes also in the dynamic interaction of a driver- vehicle-environment system. That means that once risk level crosses accepted risk level, a driver will speed up or slow down to adjust perceived risk. Driver’s risk perception influences driving behavior, as well in gap acceptance (Liu, et al., 2016). Different transport modes and user groups have different gap acceptance values, which should be considered in design of intersections. Intersections with significant percentage of trucks, should be considered by using drivers’ gap-acceptance values. Passenger car drivers require shorter gaps than truck drivers. Gaps need to be longer, when drivers make turns than when they cross the intersection. In addition, the traffic volume effects on the gap values. When the traffic volume is higher, drivers accept shorter gaps than when traffic volume is lower (Fitzpatrick, 1991). Pedestrians have also different critical gaps. An old lady with a walker, or a small child, will have longer critical gaps than average person. Design and planning should consider these special user groups, especially if the percentage of those is known to be high at the certain planning location.

As it was noticed at the Viides linja intersection, if there are no priorities and there are many conflict points, the intersection may feel unsafe and difficult to use for street users. Intersection should have environment where movement feels easy and safe, and which takes care of that all users have visibility and predictability. However, as was seen at Viides linja intersection in Helsinki, maximizing the visibility by designing large sight triangles, does not always create a safe environment. Instead it can create incoherent environment and even encourage drivers to have higher speeds (NACTO, 2013). Perpendicular intersection arms offer better visibility than non-perpendicular. In some cases, even the existing streets are not perpendicular before tramlines, they can be transformed to a right-angled one with some modification if there is space (Figure 54) (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Perpendicular intersection arms are recommended but, in some cases, not possible to implement. Intersection arms should not be less 70 degrees, however if they are less than 60 degrees, channelization should be provided (NACTO, (NACTO, 2013).

Figure 54 Intersection arms should be as perpendicular as possible to provide better visibility. Sometimes visibility can be reached by transformation of the existing non-perpendicular intersection into a right- angled one. By the solution, visibility gets better, and pedestrians have shorter crossing. (Picture: Novales & Teixeira, 2015).

The appropriate sight distance should be provided at intersection. It reduces the potential for conflicts at intersections. (Fitzpatrick, 2008). Fixed obstacles should not block the views or disturb visibility otherwise. However, removing them is neither always the best or possible solution. For instance, buildings, terrain features, some historical trees and other permanent parts of the landscape are not possible to remove. In these cases, solutions need to be found by using different solutions, such as signage and other warning features (NACTO, 2013). As noticed in Helsinki case, on street-parking may harm visibility. Thus, on-street parking should be used carefully at intersections. No on-street parking should be used from 9 meter from any intersection control device (Fitzpatrick, 2008). For instance, at Mäkelänkatu-Suvannontie intersection on-street parking was used from approximately 4 meters from intersection arms, which impaired visibility. In addition to other obstacles, which may block the views snow should be considered. At planning phase, the space reservation for snow should be considered also.

Planning and design of an intersection influence widely and in larger area. Traffic management, including for instance arrangement of turn lanes, traffic signals and signal phases, influence the traffic flow and traffic behavior. If there is bunching and congestion, the influence may reach other intersections, but it may also lead street users to select other routes. At Viides linja, one noticed challenge was that street users on Viides linja did not always observed the trams coming from southern Porthaniankatu, behind the corner. This is why, intersection design should facilitate eye contact between street users. If street users cannot see each other the risk for conflicts and collisions is high. In urban areas, corners are typically places where people gather and meet each other, as well as locations for stops, bicycle parking and other elements. In design, should be considered that corners and functions at them do not impair eye contacts between street users. Sight line standards for intersections should be determined by using target speed instead of operating speeds. The 85th percent of observed target speeds should be approximately between 15 and 50 kmh (NACTO, 2013). Sometimes, it is not possible to arrange the eye contact to all street users. In these cases, it would be important to arrange the information about incoming trams other way, for instance, by using warning lights, signs or even alarm sounds.

Reduction of traffic speeds by speed limits is one used solution for increasing the safety. Lower speeds near conflict points ensure adequate sightlines and predictable movements (NACTO, 2013). Traffic speeds and accident severity have a relationship. According to several studies, higher speeds, crash risk, plus severity of injuries have direct correlation. 72

Higher speeds also effects drivers’ peripheral vision, and the higher speed, the narrower peripheral vision (NACTO, 2013). When talking about accidents with tram, in addition to speeds, the mass differential effects severity. For instance, in Helsinki trams’ average speed is only 14 kmh and at intersection areas even lower but still severe accidents occur (Helsinki, 2015). Braking distance of tram is approximately threefold and stopping distance double to passenger car. Braking distance can be even 200 m during slick conditions (for instance, when leaves are falling). Modern low floor trams have lower stopping and braking distances than articulated or four-axle trams. Braking distances are showed in Table 4.

Table 4 Reaction, braking and Stopping distances with different vehicles. (Values: HSL 2015)

Velocity Reaction distance (m) Braking distance (m) Stopping distance (m)

(km/h) Low- Four- Low- Four- Low- Articulated Four-axle Car Bus Articulated Car Bus Articulated Car Bus floor axle floor axle floor

20 km/h - - - - 6 - - - - 12 - - - - 6

30 km/h - - 8 9 15 - - 5 5 23 - - 13 14 8

40 km/h 12 12 11 12 28 31 24 9 9 39 43 36 20 21 11 (<27)

50 km/h - 15 - 14 15 - 47 - 14 14 - 62 - 28 29

60 km/h - 18 - - - - 67 - - - - 85 - - -

The tram mass is higher and stopping distance longer than with other street users. Tram cannot make other speed decreasing functions than brake, while other vehicles, such as cars and busses, can take other evasive moves. Tram safety can be improved with some solutions, but mostly designing safe tram environment is considering the conflict points and interaction between trams and other vehicles and designing them as safe as possible. Designing traffic speeds is not only about speed limits but also geometric decisions. Curb radius, width of travel lanes, decisions about on-street parking, guardrails and clear zones are tools to effect on design speeds. Traffic speeds can also be lowered by medians, pinch points, chicanes, lane shifts, speed humps, street trees and on street parking (NACTO, 2013).

One challenge noticed at Mariankatu intersection, in Helsinki, was that joker-lights (transit priority signals) were difficult to observe because of their placement and height. Visibility of signs plays important role at intersection areas. Signs should be installed so that street users on both side of the street can see them. Signs should be installed so that they are within viewer’s cone of vision because then they command attention and allow time for response. Traffic engineering manual recommend using a 20-degree cone of vision for placement of signs and paying attention when placing signs near intersections that they do not restrict intersection sight distance (Groth, 2015). In some cases, using oversized signs on both sides of road may be good solution to get drivers to be prepared meeting trams at the area. If oversized signs are not enough flashing red lights on signs are possible solution (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). In design, it is important to consider different street user groups and design and evaluate needed solutions by needs of them. For instance, getting attention from pedestrians and cyclists may be easier by using pavement markings because their cone of vision is typically oriented to the ground.

(Figure 55). Designer need to consider the height of the street user groups and design needed solutions based on viewer’s cone. At some intersections, there may be problem that road vehicle drivers do not see perceive

Figure 55 Examples of Barcelona and Zaragoza. Pedestrians may notice pavement markings easier than signs. (Pictures: Beilinson, 2018). the existence of trams which may lead to collisions and accidents. Green rails separated by green fences may be difficult to identify as tramways, which may create challenges when tram enter intersections. Pavement materials and markings can be used to make road sections easier to understand. If markings and signs do not prevent accidents, poles may be needed. In Zürich, corresponding problem was solved by adding poles between the tracks and by painting the tracks zone pavement in green (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Traffic signals have major influence on driving behavior and intersection safety (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Irish guidelines give the basic rule that if the tram driver and street user cannot see each other, the intersection should have traffic signals (CRR, 2008). Signals influence in larger area which is important to consider in design process. As was noticed in Nordenskiöldinkatu-Urheilukatu intersection and Helsinginkatu-Harjutie intersection, places where several intersections are very close to each other are challenging points. Drivers may not notice if there are two separated traffic signals, especially if they are in different phases. If signal timing is not totally functioning, there may be bunching at intersections which may lead drivers’ frustration and higher risk- taking. Higher risk-taking includes for instance allowing shorter gaps as critical gaps and increasing driving speed. Drivers may read through the intersections to the further signals and assume they are clear to proceed across the tram intersection. For instance, in Manchester, this kind of problem was solved by fitting traffic lights with louvers that avoid the “read through” problem (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Because of the louvers, drivers cannot see the red/green aspect of the signals before they are close to them (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Physical railway barriers can be used also at intersection areas with trams. Railway barriers prevent cars or pedestrians crossing the tramways while a tram is coming. For instance, Zurich has had positive experience of decreased accident rates after adding 74 railway barriers to problematic crossing points (Urs, 2018). At intersections where car drivers repeatedly violate signalization and red lights, use of barriers is an alternative. Typically, railway barriers are used after some accidents or dangerous situations have appeared, to improve safety. They prevent accidents efficiently but make tramway system more controlled (row category A), which is not always wanted. Use of barriers should not be aimed but they are an option if problems occur. In planning phase, space reservations for this kind of arrangements can be noticed and done. Same kind of alternative, for preventing accidents caused by traffic signal violation is red light cameras (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). Red light cameras for photo enforcement of traffic lights obedience are used for instance in Los Angeles (Novales & Teixeira, 2015). They are not starting point for design, but they can be used in challenging intersections with high accident rates. In Figure 56 is collected some factors to consider in planning and design.

Figure 56 Factors to consider in design in terms of traffic safety.

Roundabouts are a common solution for intersections without tramways. Accident data did not clearly point out locations with roundabouts. In Helsinki and Gothenburg, there are not many roundabouts with tramways. However, roundabouts are used in Europe, and even Raide Jokeri plans have some tramways going on roundabouts. Thus, some

examples and experiences were found from other countries. Basic reason for having roundabouts is that they offer safe and continuous traffic flow (Novales, et al., 2016) with less conflict points than traditional intersection. Roundabouts can transform left turns into safer right turns, work as u-turning points and with them need for traffic signals can be avoided in some cases. In addition, vehicle speeds can be reduced more efficiently than at intersections where vehicles may drive through with high speeds. However, adding tramway to roundabout may cause some problems. For instance, in France accident rates are much higher for roundabouts than for intersections (Novales, et al., 2016). Typically, car driver looks left only when finding the gap to enter the circular street. After a successful joining to traffic, car driver does not look left again (Figure 57) which cause danger for collision with tram coming from left. In addition, track crossing should be as perpendicular as possible, which is more difficult to organize than at general intersection.

Line of sight

Figure 57 The driver looks left when entering the circular street, after that driver consider only vehicles coming from right. When tramway is added to a roundabout, special attention should be paid on sight distances and driver’s observation. Traffic signals are the safest solution when trams have priority over cars. (Picture adopted from Novales, et al., 2016).

The most common measures to improve safety on roundabouts are showed in figure 58. Clarity is the most important factor in design of roundabouts. Driver should be able to concentrate on traffic and not to be too confused about traffic rules and surrounding environment. Warning signs should be sited at every entrance to the circular street, after possible pedestrian crossings. Distance between pedestrian crossing and circular street should be long enough. The basic rule is that cars should not be accelerated to high speeds, but they should be left already the circular street. Distances should be considered so that driver has enough time to react and observe environment and new factors, such as signs and pedestrians. Traffic signals may be used for track crossings. However, signal phases may cause bunching. Depending on the size of the roundabout, bunching may be problem 76

if the queue reaches the other track crossing point. As an alternative for signalization, barriers might be one solution to prevent collisions with cars. However, design should consider that possible queue may not reach the tracks. According to Novales, et al. (2016), tramways should not change the side on the roundabout. Car traffic should cross the tram tracks as perpendicular as possible, and tangential crossing should not be used because of the blind spots. (Figures 59-60)

Figure 58 Most common measures to improve safety in roundabouts with tramways. (Picture adopted from Novales, et al., 2016).

1 2

3 4

5

Figure 59 Street entrances to the roundabout should not be too close to the tracks crossing (1&2). In addition, angle, in which tracks are crossed should offer visibility for car driver. Placement of tracks is important to consider carefully. Angles should be as perpendicular as possible (3,4 & 5). (Picture adopted from Novales, et al., 2016).

Figure 60 Angles and visibility should be considered also in curves. To minimize conflict points, tramway should make a turn outside the roundabout. The less crossing points the safer solution. However, if tracks are in the middle of street it may not be possible. (Picture adopted from Novales, et al., 2016).

78

5.4 Design of tram stops

As the accident data from Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin showed, pedestrian accidents take quite often place at tram stop areas, while pedestrians are leaving or entering the stop area. Typical situation leading to the accident, is situation where pedestrian is trying to catch a tram which is coming or already at the stop, and the pedestrian focuses only on that tram. While the pedestrian is running to the stop she or he may be overrun by a tram coming from other direction. In these cases, pedestrian crossings may not be used. Thus, tram stop locations should be designed by understanding pedestrian routes and the needs of passengers, pedestrians and other road users should be reflected in design. Design factors, such as sightlines, gradients and curvature, lightning and pedestrian desire lines, should be considered (ORR, 2006; CRR, 2008). Visibility is key factor when considering tram stops’ placement. Tram drivers need to have adequate visibility of the tram stop and people approaching the tram stop. In addition, other street users need to have visibility of people approaching or leaving a tram stop. Tram stop need to be designed so that it or trams stopping by it, does not block views from other street users (ORR, 2006).

Stop design should aim for a continuous, linear harmonious urban space without geometrical irregularities. The main factor of stops is their position. Stops can be positioned in the middle of the carriageways or in the side space. Island stops can be 1) island stops with stopping position in the middle and side platforms 2) island stops with stopping position in the middle and central platforms 3) island stop with lateral stopping position and side platforms (Figures 61-63).

Figure 61 Island stop with stopping position in the middle and side platforms.

Figure 62 Island stop with stopping position in the middle and central platform.

Figure 63 Island stop with lateral stopping position and side platforms.

Tram stops should be sited so that • people who cross to the tram stop can see approaching trams and other traffic, • tram driver has visibility of people who are or are approaching the stop • other street users can see tram stop, pedestrians at or approaching the stop and trams. passengers and other street users. (CRR, 2008).

Stop areas need to have appropriate lateral clearance for level boarding. Center island platforms need to be either level or near-level boarding and detectable warning strips should be used along the entire boarding edge of platform. Platforms must be accessible which requires to follow maximum slope at crossing points, at pedestrian ways and onto the platform (NACTO, 2016). Gaps between trams and platforms not only impair the accessibility but also increase the risk of falling when passengers leave the tram. Locating stops on curves should be avoided. Especially, stops located on counter-clockwise curves are difficult to enter for passengers because of the gap (Figure 64) (Jensen, 2016).

Figure 64 Accessibility of stops is part of the safety. A large gap between the platform and a tram is caused by the location of the stop on the curve. (Picture: Jensen, 2016).

Accessibility and safety go hand in hand also in other situations. If stop is not accessible, serious risk situations may be caused when for instance passengers in wheel chairs or with walkers try to entry on the stop. Non-accessible stops can also influence on 80 pedestrians who are not using tram. For instance, crossing a road may include using the pedestrian crossing via stop. If the stop is not accessible, pedestrian with walker or wheel chair, may have to use routes outside the pedestrian crossing, which may cause incidents.

Tram stop can be located differently in relation to pedestrian crossings (Johansson, 2012). In Figure 65 is showed different alternatives for placement of pedestrian crossing and the stop. In left, pedestrian crossing is located before the entering trams. In this case, a tram driver has a good visibility and possibility to see passengers approaching or leaving the other tram. Driving speeds are low in case of collision with pedestrian because tram is just leaving the stop. In the same Figure 65 in the middle, is showed alternative where trams stop at the same place. In this case, one tram is entering the stop and other is leaving the stop. The approaching tram has higher speed, while it is braking and slowing down for the stop area. In this case, there is also risk that passenger leaving the other tram, runs over the pedestrian crossing and got hit by the tram leaving the stop. In third case, trams stop after the pedestrian crossing. This alternative is widely used solution, some examples are showed in Figure 66. This alternative where trams stop at the same place, is not so safe as the first one but can be used. The last alternative is showed in the right, in the same Figure 65. In this alternative pedestrian crossing is located so that trams stop after the pedestrian crossing. This alternative is not recommended, while the traffic speeds are higher for both directions. The visibility may be poor if a tram is already at the stop and there is a risk that a pedestrian run behind the stopped tram to the pedestrian crossing.

Figure 65 Trams stopping before, collected and after pedestrian crossings. (Johansson, et al., 2012).

Figure 66 Typical solution is to have pedestrian crossings collected so that other tram stops after the crossing and other before the crossing. Left picture from Lyon and Right from Marseille (Beilinson, 2018).

Bi-directional vehicles which have doors on both sides allow using central platforms, which are typically easier to integrate into urban environment because they need less

space. However, special attention should be paid in design if operating trams have doors on both sides of vehicle. In Dublin, some SPAD-situations have been reported about cases where driver has accidentally opened doors from wrong side of the tram. In these cases, there is high risk that passengers do not notice the mistake, leave the tram and got hit by a tram coming from other direction or another vehicle traffic. If central platforms are used, protected zone or physical barriers, such as fences should be used between tramway and traffic lanes. If side platforms are used, there is no risk for passenger to get hit by cars. Using fence between tramway lanes prevent collisions by tram and passenger but is not always esthetically favored. In addition, using fence between tramway lanes may create incidents with pinch points. In these points, pedestrian cross tramway rails, do not see approaching tram and get pressed between the fence and the tram.

5.5 Design for cyclists

Cycling is energy efficient urban transport mode, which has been constantly promoted in many cities during last years. While the mode share of cycling has increased, the cycling infrastructure is also developed, and the number of cycling paths and lanes increased. According to the accident data from the case cities, accidents with cyclists are not very common. Even though accidents with cyclists and trams are rare, there are some recommendations for bicycle safety. The interaction between bicycles and trams should be considered already at the earliest stages of planning. Street markings should be clear and easy to understand to all street-users. (LDTMA, 2008). Center running, or left- running tram tracks are recommended. (ORR, 2006). Cyclists and tramways should be separated to each other always when possible (Figure 67).

Figure 67 Typically, safest solution is to have tram traffic and cycling traffic separated. (Picture: Beilinson, 2018).

The accident data does not consider accidents which do not include interaction between a tram and another street user. Thus, such accidents where a cyclist fall because of the tram tracks, are not studied. However, cyclists experience often tramway tracks more 82 dangerous than tram traffic itself. Turning movements across tram tracks cause incidents, especially when the turns are shallower. Thus, crossing points should be considered carefully and crossing-angles should be as perpendicular as possible. Crossing angle should not be under 60 degrees (ORR, 2006). In addition, perpendicular crossings offer better visibility both for trams and cyclists. Sometimes perpendicular turns are not possible to implement, because of the network. In these cases, left turns should be managed by traffic signals (Johansson, et al., 2013). In addition, cycling on the tracks and crossing tracks is experienced dangerous because the track metal is slippery. Consideration should be given specially to measures that raise awareness of the presence of tracks, for instance signage, use of texture or street markings (ORR, 2006).

Cyclists and pedestrians have typically crossing points at same places. Both pedestrians and cyclists are unprotected street users, which require special attention from other street users. However, especially at crossing points, same solutions are not always the best for both. Cyclists have more limited capability to observe for instance vehicles coming from same direction. Strict curves or turns are difficult, and for instance z-crossings should not be used for cyclists. In addition, cyclists are more sensible for tracks while the rubbers can get stuck in tracks. Cycling paths and network should be designed so that the cyclists' line of sight is turned towards arriving tram traffic, especially at crossing points (Johansson, et al., 2013). When cycling lanes are used, cyclists do not use same crossing points than pedestrians. Bicycle boxes provide safety for cyclists and increase their visibility. Bicycle boxes should not be sited on tracks, only on car lanes. Dutch studies have showed that accident risk is higher when cyclists are mixed with longitudinal tramways.

In addition, weather conditions increase the risk of accidents, especially wet and frozen surface is challenging to cyclists. Accidents occur when cyclists slip on the tracks, hard surface and entering trams may lead to serious consequences. Maintenance of cycling paths and lanes is important for offering safe cycling environment. As the accident data from Dublin showed, there should be gap which is wide enough between cycling path or lane and tramway. Other way, these “brushed contact” events may occur. Thus, the distance between trams and cyclists should always be at least 0,7 meter (Johansson, et al., 2013). On a straight line, distance between the center line of the track and the outer edge of the curb of the cycling path should be at minimum 1,8 meters (Figure 68). In curves,

Figure 68 The distance between trams and cyclists should be at least 0,7 meter. On a straight line, distance between the center line of the track and the outer edge of the curb of the cycling path should be at minimum 1,8 meters. In curves, measure swept path should be considered.

measure depends on the sweep which gives a width increase on each side of the tracks. The width of the tram should be considered in definition of the required distance (Johansson, et al., 2013).

5.6 Design for pedestrians

As the accident data from case cities showed, accidents between trams and pedestrians are typically severe accidents. The severity of the accidents is based on the fact that pedestrians are non-protected street users and the mass differential is remarkable. By design of the tramcars it is possible to minimize the damage, for instance with buffers and by optimizing the height where tram hits while collision happen. However, accidents still lead to injuries or even fatality. Pedestrians’ movements are more difficult to predict and observe than vehicle movements. Pedestrians use the routes they find most functional and create their own routes and paths. Designing safety tram environment for pedestrians requires knowledge of pedestrians’ behavior in the area and land-use which guide the pedestrians’ behavior. Site visit at Viides linja intersection, in Helsinki, proved that pedestrians do not plan their walking routes based on the locations of pedestrian crossings. Instead, pedestrians choose the lines so that they can cross the street and reach the wanted destination with as little walking as possible. Especially, as in Viideslinja case, if there are no traffic signals or priorities, despite of the right-hand rule, the traffic situation may be difficult to predict and even chaotic. In design, desire lines should be considered, especially at intersections and in other areas where are crossing points between pedestrians and other traffic. Pedestrian crossings should be situated based on natural desire lines (Khambata & Tong, 2009). In Dublin some trespassing events were reported. Pedestrian trespass can be prevented by adding suitable low-growing shrubs at the track-side. The total height of shrubs should not exceed 0,6 meter. Too high shrubs may harm visibility of children and cause danger (CRR, 2008).

Conflict points are the most dangerous places also to pedestrians. However, as earlier mentioned, designed conflict points do not always be like the reality. Accident reports pointed out three different places where accidents typically occur: stops, pedestrian crossings and crossings without pedestrian crossings. Crossing away from designated crossing facilities increases the risk of vehicle-pedestrian collision. However, it is still often chosen because it is the fastest and most direct way to reach the other side. Signalized crossings are typical safer than uncontrolled crossings, but pedestrians may feel them unattractive because of detours and delays to trip due to additional waiting and walking times (Anciaes & Jones, 2017.) If signal phases are long and pedestrians need to wait long, or they are not sure which direction traffic is coming from, safety may be compromised (Khambata & Tong, 2009). Stops and pedestrian crossings should be located so that pedestrians use designed routes and crossings. In some cases, pedestrians will find their own ways to cross the rails which increases the risk of accidents between trams and pedestrians. Some unplanned crossing points may require use of barriers, such as fences or green fences. Surface material can guide also pedestrians to choose right crossing points, for instance pedestrians will most likely avoid water, grass or wood (Figure 69). Materials and colors should be selected carefully, to create visual boundaries (Hansson, et al., 2010).

84

Figure 69 Example of guiding pedestrians by materials from Montpellier. Using different colors and materials would be better way than using different levels. (Beilinson, 2018)

Pedestrians can be guided by attracting attention, by signs and warnings or protecting by structural solutions. The key idea in design should be clarity and concentration in how pedestrians will explore the design area: where they want to go and what are the most important factors to them while choosing the route. However, pedestrian behavior is not totally predictable, and every human error cannot be prevented. The design should aim for creating safety environment to pedestrians, trams and other street users. In design of modern tramway, need to keep in mind also that trams have higher speeds. When implementing new modern tramway systems, pedestrians may also have difficulties to estimate the speed and stopping distances of trams, if they are used to old streetcars and their low speeds. Higher speeds may disclose issue of self-harm by using trams. For instance, in Dublin, some accidents were caused by people trying to suicide. However, these kinds of accidents, are difficult to prevent and they are particularly rare events. Tramways are part of urban environment and heavy separation, by fences and barriers on whole tramway sections, is not wanted solution.

Trams and tramways should be designed so that they are easy to perceive, especially at the crossing points. Pedestrians should be encouraged for using defined crossing points over the tram track. Design should convince pedestrians that the crossing point is obviously the safest crossing point. Crossings should also have dropped curbs and tactile markings (ORR, 2006). Using signs, markings and different pavement materials or colors in crossing points make perception easier to pedestrian. Signage can be arranged as traditional warning signs or using surface markings. On pavement markings may be easier to pedestrians to notice, especially for phone using pedestrians. However, weather conditions may hide them during winter time. Acoustic signals can be used for warning of incoming tram. However, they are not typically popular because of the noise disturbing residents living at the neighborhood. In Bilbao, light signals embedded in the pavement were used to warn pedestrians of entering trams. Lights start to blink while tram is coming. However, light signals are not always possible or reasonable alternative. Sometimes more protective solutions, such as fences and bollards, work better. Pedestrian crossing markings need to be considered and consistent practice should be decided. Zebra markings denote priority to pedestrians, while typically trams have priority over them.

Especially in non-signalized crossings, zebra markings are dangerous solution because of the stopping distance of the tram. Crossing markings should be easy to observe and understand. Warning signs of trams, or reminders about their priority would increase safety at crossings without signalization.

As the number of traffic lanes increases, pedestrians may feel less safe entering the intersection. Especially, at non-signalized intersections, pedestrians may explore finding a gap difficult and unsafe. Design should provide crossings that are and feel safe for pedestrians. Higher traffic speeds and traffic volumes may require the use of a median at narrower cross-section for unsignalized crossings. Pedestrian safety island should be at 1.8 m wide, but recommendation is 2.5–3 m (NACTO, 2013). The recommended minimum 1.8 m is based on the length of a bicycle or a person pushing a stroller (NACTO, 2013). Medians at intersections should have a “nose” which widen past the crosswalk and protect pedestrians and cyclists waiting on the median. Safety islands should also have curbs, bollards, fences or other protecting structures for waiting people (Figure 70). Signalized crossing should be designed so that pedestrian have enough time to cross the whole crossing (NACTO, 2013).

Figure 70 Examples of waiting areas for pedestrians. (Beilinson, 2018).

Z-crossings (Figure 71) can be used in challenging crossing points. Z-crossing decrease the risk for pedestrians running across the tram tracks and not noticing incoming tram by channeling pedestrian traffic. However, pedestrian may feel them as unpleasant obstacles which make crossing tramways difficult (Hansson, et al., 2010). Maintenance should be considered in design. Especially, in winter time, maintenance may be difficult. Z-crossing also effect on traffic capacity, and limit pedestrian flows. 86

Figure 71 Z-crossings (Beilinson, 2018; Hansson, et al., 2006).

Increasing problem seems to be pedestrians using phones or earphones and not concentrating on traffic. The problem came out from accident data both from Gothenburg and Dublin. Changes in attitudes will be needed and safety campaigns are one way to effect on them. With acoustic warning signals or striking lights, pedestrians can be warned of incoming trams. However, these solutions are not part of comfortable environment. Situating warnings and signs on pavement, or adding lights on pavement, where phone using pedestrian probably look already, may help. Possibly, some application could also provide warnings for phone user when she or he is approaching the crossing point with tram. The common reason to severe injuries, for both pedestrians and cyclists, seems to be head injuries caused by falling. Typically, head is not hit by the tram but the tracks. In addition, the street surface is typically heavy. One solution could be to use of softer materials on crossing points. Challenges of them may be the endurance of heavy vehicle and use and costs. In addition, the tracks would still be hard material which could lead to head injuries.

6. Conclusion

While the first modern tramways are planned in Finland, the traffic safety for tramways requires special attention. Tramway safety is sum of several factors and it can be evaluated by using multiple methods. In this study, analyses based on the traffic accident data, GIS-analysis, site visits and a literature review. Every traffic accident is a rare and unique event. Accidents can be predicted by analyzing traffic conflicts. The higher the number of the conflicts at certain point is, the higher the risk for an accident is. Collision speed, angle and mass difference between vehicles influence on the severity of accidents. Even though planning and design of tramway system does not prevent every accident, with great decisions it is possible to influence on the safety.

Accident data from Helsinki, Gothenburg and Dublin was studied. Based on these studies was noticed that typically tram accidents take place at intersections, pedestrian crossings or near tram stops. Analyses proved that less severe accidents are typically accidents including a tram and a car. Based on the analysis, the accidents where a vehicle turns over the tracks and collide with a tram, differ by their severity from other vehicle-tram accidents. Especially left-turns and U-turns may lead to serious accidents because of the collision angle. Rear-end collisions and side-swipes lead usually to property damages. Reported pedestrian-tram and cyclist-tram accidents are typically severe accidents. The reason for that is the mass difference, unprotected nature of pedestrians and cyclists, but also the data collection system. While accident data is collected by police, especially pedestrians and cyclists do not report the accidents without injuries.

Traffic safety is closely related to traffic psychology. Street users valuate typically time savings, short distances and easiness. Planning and design should focus on these three factors all way through the planning process. Good design does not only rely on street users wanted behavior but recognizes also the possible unwanted behavior models. Street users typically find their own ways to use traffic system if system does not offer wanted functionality itself. Every planner and designer should ask why, what and to who environment is planned or designed. Desire lines, visibility of street user and the surrounding land use should be considered carefully. In Helsinki case, remarkable percentage of accidents took place at signalized intersections which not only tell that many intersections with tram traffic are signalized but also that there are some serious challenges. Drivers and pedestrians may violate signalization but still it tells about problems in signal timing. Duration of signal phases, especially at intersections which are familiar to drivers, may lead to traffic signals violation. Pedestrian behavior is difficult to predict, and accidents with pedestrians are typically caused by human errors. One increasing challenge is to reach pedestrians attention on traffic. Pedestrians use nowadays much phones and headphones and may not focus on traffic. Warning signs on pavement, warning lights or sounds can be used for getting attention from pedestrians. In future, a phone application warning about forthcoming trams could be a help.

Well-functioning traffic signals are crucial to safety of tram environment. However, traffic signals may not always be the best or the only solution. If traffic volumes are low, signals may not be needed. Intersections with left-turning vehicles should have signals and left-turns over tracks without traffic signals should be avoided. If traffic volumes of local streets are low, left turns may be denied and the traffic guided to use other routes without left-turns on network. If mixed tram and vehicle traffic is used, left-turn lanes should be organized on the tracks. Rear-end collisions lead to smaller damages than collision with turning vehicles. Special attention should be paid on signal phase timing, 88 especially if there are several intersections close to each other. In addition, the placement of the signals should be considered carefully. Driver’s sight distances, eye-height and visual field of sight need to be considered. When intersections re close to each other, driver should not be able to accidentally look on the signals of the next intersection. Intersections close to each other may also lead to bunching, which should be considered in design so that tramways are free of vehicles.

Accidents with cyclists are quite rare. However, while cycling as a transport mode is increasing, it should be considered in tramway design also. Accidents with trams are quite rare but accidents caused by tram tracks are more typical. Accidents caused by tram tracks are not usually reported to police and number of the is unknown. Cyclist can get stuck on the tracks which can lead to collision with approaching tram or injuries caused by the falling. Cycling network should be planned so that crossing points of tram are possible to organize well. Cycling paths and network should be designed so that the cyclists' line of sight is turned towards arriving tram traffic, especially at crossing points. Crossing should be as perpendicular as possible, minimum angle for crossing should be 60 degrees. If cycling lanes are used, or cycling paths next to tramways, distance between tram tracks and cycling lane should be 0,7 meter at minimum. In addition, curb between tram track and platform should be wide enough, so that bicycles can proceed comfortably.

Visibility, clarity and uniformity should be considered in planning. Visibility includes sight distances and sight triangles, visibility of signs and traffic signals, visibility of tramway tracks and visibility of tram itself. Clarity is crucial for safety and is base for the functional tramway system. Coherent use of different surface materials and colors and pavement markings make environment clear and easy to understand. Uniformity in used solution in the whole city is important. Conflict points should be considered, especially at early planning phases. Signalization decrease typically the number of conflict points. In addition, crossings should not be too long for any street user. Traffic islands and free spaces between traffic lanes and tramways can be used. Planning and design should be done for the users, and in street users point of views. Planning should be done considering the larger network and aiming to create safe traffic environment. Tramway is just a part of traffic system. To create safe traffic environment, every other street user and their interaction need to be considered too. Consideration of single intersections or street sections may just move the problems to other location.

Traffic safety is multidimensional and complicated subject. This thesis covered subjects which were considered as challenging factors for Finnish tramway system. Traffic psychology and especially pedestrian behavior are important part of safety studies. Further research of how pedestrians interact with tramways would be interesting. In this thesis, safety was studied by using accident data, but safety can be studied also by studying intersections and crossings with no accidents. In this thesis was noticed that many accidents were located at signalized intersections. Further research of how safety could be improved by traffic signal planning would be needed.

Some design and planning recommendations are collected into Table 5.

Table 5 Factors to consider in planning and design in terms of safety Design in terms of safety

Tram stops

Platform width >1,8 m

Passenger volumes should be considered. Basic rule is to have 1 m2 / passenger.

Separation

Different surface material or color for tramways. Tram stop should be easy to recognize and accessible.

Placement

Placement on straight section, so that there is no gap between tram and a stop.

Tram should stop before crossing point (low speeds, better visibility). If not possible, trams (Johansson, et al., 2012). should stop at the same place.

Design for pedestrians Crossing points Clear and appealing. Consistent visual look for every crossing point for pedestrians.

Desire lines

Land use need to be considered. Where pedestrians want to go? Placement of crossing points and possible need for fences, barriers, etc. 90

(Beilinson, 2018)

Visibility

Pedestrian eye-height: 0,9 m–2,0 m.

Warning signs of trams, especially near crossing points. Markings on pavement in addition to the signs.

On-street parking should not block visibility.

Pedestrian Medians at intersections should island (space have a “nose” which widen past the between >1,8 meter crosswalk and protect pedestrians tramway and and cyclists waiting on the median. traffic lanes) Crossings may not be too long (gap acceptance).

Design for cyclists

Separation

Cyclists and trams separated always when possible.

(Beilinson, 2018)

Crossing point As perpendicular as possible, min. angle 60 degrees

Design so that cyclists’ line of sight is turned towards arriving tram traffic, especially at crossing points.

Cycling lanes

Distance between tram and cyclists min. 0,7 m.

Visibility Placement of the signs and guidance. Eye-height of cyclist: 2m

Intersections

Separation

Different surface material/color for tramway. In addition, for crossings own surface materials/colors. Same kind of markings at every intersection.

(Hansson, et al., 2011)

Traffic signals Signal timing and phases in relation to intersections close to each other.

Influence on network (bunching, turning vehicles)

Placement considering the street users and visual field.

Visibility

Eye-height of car driver: 1,1 m

92

Intersection arms should be perpendicular, recommendation is not to have less than 70 degrees arms. However, if angle is less than 60 degrees, channelization should be provided

Sight triangles should be used in design in relation to gap acceptance. One intersection may need more than one sight triangles.

Fixed obstacles may be removed. Special attention to planting and placement of traffic signs. On- (Novales & Teixeira, 2015) street parking distance from intersection min. 9 m.

Conflict points Conflict point map should be made of every intersection. Number of conflict point should be minimized.

The high number of conflict points increase the accident risk.

Traffic signals and limited left- turns typically decrease number of conflict points. Planning network in larger scale to create safe routes.

Roundabouts

Roundabouts are not recommended but if they are used, special attention should be paid to line of sight.

Tram track crossing should be as perpendicular as possible.

Left-turns

Left-turns over tracks should be avoided. Own signal phase may be a solution. Left-turns can be denied, and traffic can be guided to use other routes.

The limitations of this study refer to the data. Data from Helsinki and Gothenburg is from police reports, which exclude non-reported minor accidents. In addition, accidents are unique events and even at same circumstances with same factors the result may be different. This study concentrates on Finnish conditions. However, culture influence on the traffic behavior and other conditions, such as climate and terrain.

94

References Abdel-Aty, Mohamed A. & Radwan, Essam A. 1999. Modeling traffic accident occurrence and involvement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, ISSN: 0001-4575, Vol: 32, Issue: 5, Page: 633-642.

Anciaes, Paulo Rui & Jones, Peter. 2017. Estimating preferences for different types of pedestrian crossing facilities. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Volume 53. pp. 222-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.025

Battiato, Sebastiano & Cafiso, Salvatore & Di Graziano, Alessandro & Farinella, Giovanni & Giudice, Oliver. 2013. Road Traffic Conflict Analysis from Geo-referenced Stereo Sequences. 381-390. 10.1007/978-3-642-41181-6_39.

Beilinson, Davy. 2018. Pictures.

Bertrand, Dominique & Fontaine, Laetitia. 2016. Safety Management in European LRT Systems. Some Tools for Collecting and Using Accident Data. Transportation research Circular. 13th National Light Rail and Streetcar Conference. Transforming Urban Areas. ISSN 0097-8515

Blancheton, Marine & Fontaine Laëtitia. 2013. Tram safety management – France experience.

Chester County. 2016. Design Elements. Multi-modal Circulation Handbook for Chester County, PA. [online] http://www.chesco.org/DocumentCenter/View/34285. Visited 14.1.2019.

CRR, 2008. RSC-G-001-B. Guidelines for The Design of Railway Infrastructure and Rolling Stock, Section 0. Introduction and the top-level principles.

De Labonnefon, Valérie & Passelaigue, Jean-Michel. 2015. Accidentology of tramways. Analysis of reported events – year 2013 – evolution 2004 –2013. Reports. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy. MEDDE – DGITM- Technical Office for Mechanical Lifts and Guided Transport Systems (STRMTG). Tram Division

FDOT. 2010. Sight distance at intersections. Design standards. http://www.fdot.gov/roadway/DS/12/IDx/00546.pdf. Visited 15.1.2019.

Fitzpatrick, Kay. 2008. Intersections. Urban Street Geometric Design Handbook. ITE. Chapter 4. pp. 187-231

Fitzpatrick, Kay & Wooldridge, Mark & Blaschke, Joseph. 2005. Urban Intersection Design Guide: Volume 1 – Guidelines. [online] https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4365-P2.pdf. Visited 12.1.2019.

Fitzpatrick, Kay. 1991. Gaps Accepted at Stop-Controlled Intersections. Transportation Research Record 1303. ISSN: 0361-1981

Fontaine, Latetitia. 2015. Operation and safety of tramways in interaction with public space. Analysis and Outcomes Detailed Report. COST TU1103.

Groth Susan. 2015. Traffic signs and delineation. Traffic Engineering Manual. [online]. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/tem/2009/Chapter-06.pdf. Visited 19.1.2019.

Göteborg Spårvägar. 2016. ÅRSREDOVISNING. [online] http://www.goteborgssparvagar.se/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/rsredovisninggsab2016.pdf. Visited 10.2.2019

Hansson, Joel & Andersson, PG & Möller, Malena & Petersson, Björn. 2011. Handledning för spårvägsplanering i Skåne. [online] http://www.projektering.nu/files/Handledning_sparvagsplanering_Skane.pdf. Visited 10.1.2019.

Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto. 2015. Urheilulehdon ympäristön katujen liikennesuunnitelma. [online] https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/liitteet/2015_liikenne/0918_12_liikennesuunnitelma.pdf. Visited 15.2.2019.

Helsinki. 2018. Traffic Maps. [online] https://www.hel.fi/static/liitteet/kaupunkiymparisto/liikenne-ja- kartat/kadut/liikennetilastot/autoliikenne/webmap/index.html#12/60.1377/24.9582). Visited 1.11.2018

Helsinki. 2015. Pikaraitiotie. Tulevaisuuden joukkoliikennettä Helsingissä. (https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/julkaisut/esitteet/esite_2015-5_fi.pdf).

Helsinki. n.d. https://www.hel.fi/static/liitteet/kaupunkiymparisto/liikenne-ja- kartat/kadut/liikennetilastot/autoliikenne/Liikennelaskennat/H2P2090.htm

HSL. 2018. Vuosikertomus 2017. https://vuosikertomus.hsl.fi/. Visited 10.2.2019

Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto 2018. Mäkelänkadun liikennesuunnitelma VE1. [online] https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/liitteet/2018_liikenne/926_15_liikennesuunnitelmaluonnos_ VE1.pdf. Visited 19.12.2018

Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto. 2015. Urheilulehdon ympäristön katujen liikennesuunnitelma. Liikennesuunnitelmaluonnos. https://kartta.hel.fi/ https://www.hel.fi/hel2/ksv/liitteet/2015_liikenne/0918_12_liikennesuunnitelma.pdf

Helsingin karttapalvelu. 2018. [online] https://kartta.hel.fi/. Visited 30.12.2018

HKL-HST-Transtech. n.d. Helsinki’s new tram Artic. [online] https://www.hel.fi/static/hkl/artic.pdf. Visited 1.1.2019

HKL. 2017. [online] https://www.hsl.fi/uudet-raitiolinjat-2017/uudet-linjat-ja-kartat. Visited 15.11.2018.

Jensen, Patrick. 2016. The accessibility of tramways in cold climates: A case study of Helsinki tramway system. Master’s thesis. Espoo, Finland: . pp 48.

Johansson, Roger & Pärlbäck, Camilla & Berglund, Charlotte & Johansson, Claes & Edman, David & Agneman, Emma & Johansson, Emma & Halsen, Lilia Bidar & Lagerkvist, Katarina & Isaksson, Kristina & Mattson, Kristina & Rosén, Malin & 96

Rörstad, Marie & Andersson, Stefan. 2012. SÄKER SPÅRVÄG i integration med bebyggelse, kunskapsstöd vid planering och projektering.

Khambata, Shaneen & Tong, Ronit. 2009. Understanding how pedestrians interface with trams. Transport Research Laboratories (TRL).

Kraay, J.h. & Horst, A.R.A. van der & Oppe, S. 2013. Manual conflict observation technique DOCTOR. Dutch Objective Conflict Technique for Operation and Research. Foundation Road safety for all Report 2013-1.

König, Herbert & Heipp, Gunnar. 2008. The Modern Tram in Europe. MVG. [online] http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/The-Modern-Tram-in-Europe.pdf. Visited 15.11.2018.

Kuronen, Pauliina. 2018a. Standard drawing of a pedestrian crossing. [email]. 12.12.2018.

Kuronen, Pauliina. 2018b. Discussion 12.12.2018.

Laureshyn, Aliaksei & Svensson, Åse & Hydén, Christer, 2010. Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: Theoretical framework and first implementation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Volume 42, Issue 6, 2010.

Laureshyn Aliaksei & Várhelyi András. 2018. The Swedish Traffic Conflict Techinique. Observer’s manual. Lund 2018. http://www.tft.lth.se/fileadmin/tft/images/Update_2018/Swedish_TCT_Manual.pdf

Liu, Miaomiao & Chen, Yongsheng & Lu, Guangquan & Wang, Yungpeng. 2016. Modeling crossing behavior of drivers at unsignalized intersections with consideration of risk perception. Transportation Research Part F.

Lloyd District Transportation Management Association (LDTMA) Bicycle interaction and streetcars: Lessons Learned and Recommendations.

LUAS 2018. [online] https://luas.ie/map/. Visited 20.12.2018.

Luleå, 2008. Trafiksäkerhet för fotgängare. Skadade i Luleå 2003–2006. [online] https://www.lulea.se/download/18.2361edeb13cf367a1f947f/1361374111096/Trafiks% C3%A4kerhet%20f%C3%B6r%20fotg%C3%A4ngare.pdf. Visited 24.1.2019.

Mannering, Fred L. & Bhat, Chandra R, 2013. Analytic methods in accident research: Methodological frontier and future directions. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, Volume 1, 2014.

Marstrander, Stephan. 2018. Safety of the Interaction Between Light-Rail and Other Road Users.

McLean, J. 1981. The severity and consequences of injuries in urban traffic accidents. In Proceedings of the 6th International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact.

Millot, Marine. 2015. How are pedestrians involved. Ensuring LRT and streetcar safety. LRT Safety in France. pp. 140-148. Transforming Urban Areas. 13th National Light

Rail and Streetcar Conference. Transportation research circular E-C213. ISSN 0097- 8515

Milton, John C. & Mannering, Fred L. 1996. The Relationship between Highway Geometrics, Traffic Related Elements, and Motor Vehicle Accidents. Washington State Transportation Center, Research Report.

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2013. Design Speed. Urban Street Guide. [online]. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design- guide/design-controls/design-speed/. Visited 15.2.2019.

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2013. Speed Reduction Mechanisms. Urban Street Design Guide. [online]. https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/design-controls/design-speed/speed-reduction-mechanisms/. Visited 25.1.2019.

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2016. Station and stop principles. Transit street design guide. Washington: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-61091- 747-6

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials. 2013. Visibility/Sight Distance. pp. 121. Urban street design guide. Washington: Island Press. ISBN 978-1- 61091-747-6

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials. n.d. Sight distance studies. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/sight_distance_study_Iowa.pdf. Visited 15.1.2019

Nilsson, Philip & Nilsson, Sebastian. 2015. Application of Poisson Regression on Traffic Safety. KTH Royal institute of Technology. Sci School of Engineering Sciences. ISRN-KTH/MAT/E--15/23-SE

Novales, Margarita & Marti, Christian M. & Teixeira, Manuel & Schmitt, Dominique & Monti, Franck & Morley, Reddy & Fontaine, Laetitia. 2016. Use and design of safe roundabouts in Light Rail Transit (LRT) networks.

Novales, Margarita & Teixeira, Manuel. 2015. Getting a Safer LRT Through a Better Design of Its Insertion in Public Space. Ensuring LRT and Streetcar safety. Transforming Urban Areas. 13th National Light Rail and Streetcar Conference. Transportation research circular E-C213. ISSN 0097-8515

Office of Rail Regulation ORR. 2006. Guidance on tramways. Railway Safety Publication 2. [online]. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20170206150022/http:/orr.gov.uk/__data/as sets/pdf_file/0018/2637/rspg-2g-trmwys.pdf. Visited 25.12.2018.

Qu, Zhaowei & Duan, Yuzhou & Song, Xianmin & Hu, Hongyu & Liu, Huanfeng & Guan, Kehan. 2014.Capacity Prediction Model Based on Limited Priority Gap- Acceptance Theory at Multilane Roundabouts.

Raitiotieallianssi. 2019. Tampere Tramway. [online] https://raitiotieallianssi.fi/in- english/. Visited 23.12.2018. 98

Raide-Jokeri. 2019. Allianssin vaiheet. [online] http://raidejokeri.info/allianssin-vaiheet/. Visited 23.1.2019.

Riipinen, Laura. 2015. Viranomaisen rooli kaupunkiraideliikenteessä. Diplomityö. Aalto- yliopisto, Insinööritieteiden korkeakoulu, Yhdyskunta- ja ympäristötekniikka.

Romppainen, Teemu. 2018. Questions about tramcar safety. Interview via email 19.10.2018.

Satria, R., & Castro, M. (2016). GIS tools for analyzing accidents and road design: a review. Transportation research procedia, Volume 18, pp. 242-247.

Schroeder, Bastian & Cunningham, Christopher & Findley, Daniel & Hummer, Joseph & Foyle, Robert. 2010. Alternative Safety Studies. pp. 383-412. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies 2nd Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ISBN-10; 1-933452-53-6

Schröter, Reinhold. 2011. Bybanen Bergen Light Rail – Assessment on some questions related to traffic safety.

Sauramäki, Eero. 2018. Discussion 26.10.2018.

STRMGT. 2012. Guide d'implantation des obstacles fixes à proximité des intersections tramways / voies routières. Technique des Remontées Mécaniques et des Transports Guidés. [online] http://www.strmtg.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/GT3- DTW-Obstacles_Fixes_V2b.pdf . Visited 15.11.2018.

Trafi. 2016. Yksi liikennekuolema maksaa noin 2,77 milj. euroa. [online] https://arkisto.trafi.fi/uutisarkisto/4118/yksi_liikennekuolema_maksaa_noin_2_77_milj _euroa. Visited 1.1.2019

Trafikverket. 2015. Swedish Traffic Accident Data Acquisition (STRADA). [online] https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/operations/Operations-road/vision-zero- academy/Vision-Zero-and-ways-to-work/strada/. Visited 27.12.2018

Trafikverket. 2017. This is vision zero. [online] https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/operations/Operations-road/vision-zero- academy/This-is-Vision-Zero/. Visited 2.1.2019.

TRB. 1997. Review of international practices used to evaluate unsignalized intersections. Transportation Research Circular 468.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Troutbeck, Rod & Brilon, Werner. 1997. Unsignalized intersection theory.

Tupper, S. M., Knodler Jr, M. A., & Hurwitz, D. S. 2011. Connecting gap acceptance behavior with crash experience. In 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and SimulationPurdue UniversityTransportation Research Board.

UIT 2016 Knowledge brief. Light Rail Transit – A Safe Means of Transport.

Urs, Feuz. Discussion via email 29.9.2018.

VDV. 2016. Design of Urban Tramway Infrastructure - Manual for Urban Architectural Integration.

Vuchic, Vukan R. 1999. Transportation for liveable cities. ISBN 0-88285-161-6.

Washington, Simon & Van Schalkwyk, Ida & Mitra, Sudeshna & Meyer, Michael & Dumbaugh, Eric & Zoll, Matthew. 2016. Incorporating Safety into Long-Range Transportation Planning. NCHRP report 546. Chapter 6. Incorporating safety considerations into transportation planning. pp. 27-59.

Yli-Seppälä, Jussi. 2018. Pictures of vehicles directions on collisions. [email] 6.11.2018.

(Yli-Seppälä, 2018).

Legislation and Acts:

Road Traffic Act 267/1981

The new Road Traffic Act

The Act about Rail-Borne Urban Traffic

The Act on Transport services

The Act on Public Transit

Act on rail traffic responsibility

Safety Investigation Act

The Act of safety at metro and light-rail (SFS 1990:1157)

The Regulations about safety at metro and light-rail (SFS 1990:1165)

The Traffic Regulations (SFS 1998:1276)

The Regulations regarding safety management and safety regulations for metro and light- rail (TSFS 2013:44)

The Regulations regarding traffic safety instruction for metro and light-rail (JvSFS 2008:9)

The Traffic Safety Instruction (TRI)

The Service Regulations

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001

Transport (Dublin light rail) Act 1996

Planning principles

Tampere Tramway. 2018. Suunnitteluperusteet. Unpublished.

Raide-Jokeri. 2018. Suunnitteluperusteet. Unpublished.