Report No: AUS17950
Middle East and North Africa
EgyptPublic Disclosure Authorized Road Assessment Program iRAP Egypt Technical Report
December 10, 2014
GTI05 Public Disclosure Authorized MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Standard Disclaimer:
This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Copyright Statement:
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail [email protected].
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014
International Road Assessment Programme A WORLD FREE OF HIGH RISK ROADS
About iRAP
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a registered charity dedicated to saving lives through safer roads. We provide tools and training to help countries make roads safe. Our activities include: inspecting high-risk roads and developing Star Ratings, Safer Roads Investment Plans and Risk Maps providing training, technology and support that will build and sustain national, regional and local capability
tracking road safety performance so that funding agencies can assess the benefits of their investments. The programme is the umbrella organisation for EuroRAP, AusRAP, usRAP, KiwiRAP and ChinaRAP. Road Assessment Programmes (RAP) are now active in more than 70 countries throughout Europe, Asia Pacific, North, Central and South America and Africa. iRAP is financially supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society and the Road Safety Fund. Projects receive support from the Global Road Safety Facility, automobile associations, regional development banks and donors. National governments, automobile clubs and associations, charities, the motor industry and institutions such as the European Commission also support RAPs in the developed world and encourage the transfer of research and technology to iRAP. In addition, many individuals donate their time and expertise to support iRAP. iRAP is a member of the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration.
This study
This study (submitted 12 December 2014) was supported by the World Bank, using funds supplied by Bloomberg Philanthropies. The analysis, reporting and associated training and consultation of this iRAP study was performed by EuroRAP, acting as agent for iRAP. Nikola Galović of AMSS-CMV prepared this analysis and report.
For more information
For further details contact Dr Steve Lawson at International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) Worting House, Basingstoke Hampshire, UK, RG23 8PX Telephone: +44 (0) 1256 345598 Email: [email protected]
Cover picture
GARBLT
© International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2014 iRAP technology including protocols, processes and brands may not be altered or used in any way without the express written agreement of iRAP. iRAP is registered in England & Wales under company number 05476000. Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 1 Contents
1 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 Egypt Road Assessment Program ...... 4 1.3 Objectives of the Program ...... 4 1.4 Project deliverables ...... 5 1.5 Egypt capacity building ...... 5 1.6 Methodology ...... 7 1.6.1 Measuring the road infrastructure safety...... 8 1.6.2 The Star Rating process...... 8 1.6.3 Developing the Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIPs) ...... 8 1.7 Work Schedule...... 10 2 Road network ...... 12 3 Data Collection ...... 16 3.1 Road Survey ...... 16 3.2 Coding the data ...... 20 3.3 Traffic volumes ...... 22 3.4 Pedestrian and bicycle volume ...... 22 3.5 Operating speed ...... 24 3.6 Crash data ...... 27 3.7 Countermeasure costs ...... 29 3.8 Economic data ...... 30 4 Detailed Road Condition Report ...... 31 5 Road safety assessment results ...... 43 5.1 Overall Star Ratings Results ...... 43 5.2 Egypt compared with other countries ...... 48 5.3 Detailed Star Ratings Results ...... 48 5.3.1 Road 25_195 (Aswan – Abu Simbel), the tourist route...... 48 5.3.2 Road 21 (Cairo – Alexandria), the agricultural route ...... 53 6 Safer Roads Investment Plan ...... 56 6.1 Overview of the method ...... 56 6.1.1 Estimating the number of deaths and serious injuries ...... 56 6.1.2 Selecting countermeasures ...... 56 6.1.3 Economic analysis ...... 56 6.2 Investment plan ...... 57 6.3 Implementation of Countermeasures ...... 61 6.3.1 Tailoring a SRIP for a specific section of road ...... 62
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 2 6.4 Detailed SRIP Results ...... 62 6.4.1 Road 21 (Cairo – Alexandria), the agricultural route ...... 62 7 Safer road system ...... 67 8 Future action ...... 70 8.1 Maintenance, crash reduction measures and upgrading ...... 70 8.1 Mass action ...... 71 8.1 Perform a demonstration project ...... 73 8.2 Engagement with the data and the Egypt road safety community...... 74 9 Conclusions ...... 75 10 Appendix 1: Countermeasure costs (rounded) ...... 76 11 Appendix 2: Traffic flows ...... 80 12 Appendix 3: Countermeasure examples ...... 83
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 3
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes are a major and growing public health epidemic. Each year, an estimated number of 1.24 million people (WHO) die in road crashes and the number of seriously injured is as high as 50 million. Road crashes are now the leading cause of death of children and young people aged between 10 and 24. The burden of road crashes is comparable with malaria and tuberculosis, and costs 1- 3% of the world’s GDP. Almost nine out of ten road deaths and serious injuries occur in developing countries. Whereas road deaths are expected to fall in high-income countries, they are likely to increase by more than 80% in the rest of the world. In developing countries, it is the poor that are most vulnerable. Pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists are many times more likely than car occupants to be harmed on the roads. Unless preventative measures are put in place, the number of killed will almost double by 20301.
1.2 Egypt Road Assessment Program
Egypt is a middle-income country, belonging to the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). It has a population of 81,121,080, with the GNI of USD 2,420. Egypt used to be the worst performing EMR country, with just over 45 fatalities per 100,000 population (according to WHO 2004 modelled data). Though the number of reported road traffic fatalities decreased to 7,3982 in 2010 (74%M, 26%F), from about 12,2953 in 2007, it will be necessary to undertake more action and additional measures to face these road safety challenges. One of the measures includes a road survey of the Egyptian road network, in order to eliminate deficiencies of the existing roads and help build a safer road infrastructure for all road users. To that end, and in order to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries, the World Bank (WB) has undertaken a road safety assessment program in Egypt. The World Bank Global Road Safety facility through the Bloomberg Philanthropies RS10 program has funded the Road Survey and Coding tasks which were delivered on March 31, 2014. The World Bank Global Road Safety Facility and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region have financed the analysis, reporting and training tasks that are part of this Programme’s Terms of Reference.
1.3 Objectives of the Program
The objective of the Program is to assess the safety of about 2,100 km of main roads in Egypt and build capacity for a sustainable road safety, in the field of road safety inspection and maintenance and network safety management. The objectives include the following tasks: Survey 2,100 km of roads that are managed by the General Authority for Roads, Bridges and Land Transport and code the video survey data according to the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) Survey and Coding specification.
1World Health Organization (2009) Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action
2http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2013/country_profiles/egypt.pdf?ua=1
3http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/country_profiles/egypt.pdf?ua=1
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 4 Collect crash data, traffic flow and speed data for the 2,100 km according to the iRAP Data Analysis and Reporting specification. Produce an iRAP input file which includes all road attributes and collected data. Produce Star Rating results and Safer Roads Investment Plan to identify areas of high risk and to shape future road safety investment. Produce a detailed technical report in accordance with iRAP Data Analysis and Reporting specification The General Authority of Roads, Bridges and Land Transport (GARBLT) has overseen the implementation of the Project. The ARRB (Australian Road Research Board), which was founded in 1960 and incorporated in 1965, and is engaging in science and technical research in highway traffic and transportation field, has been providing trusted advice, technical expertise and solutions to transport and road agencies across the world. ARRB was invited by the WB to undertake the Egypt road assessment project in conjunction with the Indian Road Survey and Management pvt Ltd. The quality assurance review and data processing was carried out by the Serbian AMSS-CMV. The project inception visit was in September 2012, and the work was finished in December 2014. After the road inspection, coding, collection of supporting data, data processing and analyses and reporting have been completed, and priority locations or sections of the road identified, Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIP) have been tailored for identified road sections in order to suit specific circumstances, i.e. improve road safety at this particular location, for all road users.
1.4 Project deliverables
The deliverables of the project include the following:
Supporting Data in Excel Format collected according to RAP-SR-3-2. Processing and analysis iRAP upload file according to RAP-SR-3-3 Reporting and training Full technical report Summary report Training to GARBLT Staff on the use of ViDA tool and how the Star Rating and Safer Roads Investment Plan models of iRAP works in conjunction with the results for Egypt programme. This report is the full technical report which includes all information about the project. Stakeholders can also access data in iRAP online software (vida.irap.com). (The password of the iRAP online software is protected, for access. Please contact iRAP staff for details).
1.5 Egypt capacity building
The Government of Egypt initiated this Road Assessment Programme whose objective is to assess the safety of 2,100 km of main roads in Egypt and build capacity within the General Authority of Roads, Bridges and Land Transport (GARBLT), in the areas of road safety inspection and network safety management, using the methodologies of the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). In December 2012 the Ministry of Transport and World Bank established a de facto Steering Committee with all matters relating to the project being shared in regular meetings including some or all of senior representatives of the Ministry GARBLT, the World Bank and their advisers and, where appropriate, iRAP or EuroRAP.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 5 Figure 1 Inception visit by iRAP and World Bank, September 2012
In order to help the road assessment staff from Egypt to build a team for iRAP project in Egypt, a special training for ViDA was conducted by the Serbian AMSS-CMV and RAP staff. ViDA is the new software that has been developed within the iRAP programme. It contributes to a higher quality of analysis that was available previously and to a more comprehensive processing of data of the roads that have been surveyed and coded. It is a vital part of making a world free of high risk roads. A training concerning the use of ViDA software was held for the Egypt programme staff and included the following: How to apply for a new user name of ViDA Functional components of ViDA How to import the coding data into ViDA
How to set up the parameters, such as facilities costs, accident data, etc. How to view the outcomes, including the star rating maps, Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIP), etc.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 6 1.6 Methodology
The protocols used here were developed by the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP). iRAP is a registered charity dedicated to saving lives through safer roads. iRAP provides tools and training to help countries make roads safe. Its activities include: inspecting high-risk roads and developing Star Ratings, Safer Roads Investment Plans and Risk Maps,
providing training, technology and support that will build and sustain national, regional and local capability,
tracking the road safety performance so that funding agencies can assess the benefits of their investments. The programme is the umbrella organisation for EuroRAP, AusRAP, usRAP, KiwiRAP and ChinaRAP. Road Assessment Programmes (RAP) are now active in more than 70 countries throughout Europe, Asia Pacific, North, Central and South America and Africa. iRAP is financially supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society and the Road Safety Fund. Projects receive support from the Global Road Safety Facility, automobile associations, regional development banks and donors. National governments, automobile clubs and associations, charities, automotive industry and institutions, such as the European Commission, also support RAPs in the developed world and encourage the transfer of research and technology to iRAP. In addition, many individuals donate their time and expertise to support iRAP. iRAP is a member of the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration. The main objective of the RAP method is the improvement of the road users’ safety by proposing cost- effective investment plans. The most crucial point of the RAP methodology is that engineers and planners in developed countries have for over twenty years adopted an underlying philosophy of designing a forgiving road system to minimize the chances of injuries when road users make mistakes that result in crashes. The method indicates that the severity of a road accident can be reduced through the intervention at the sequence of events happening during this accident. As it is known, an injury accident results from a chain of events, starting with an initial event, probably resulting from several factors, which leads to a dangerous situation. The basic idea is to intervene at any point of this chain, in order to reduce the kinetic energy of all road users involved in the accident to a tolerable level. Such an intervention may not only reduce the number of accidents, but also the severity of injuries. The initial step for the implementation of the RAP method is the inspection and record of the infrastructure elements of a road network, which relate to the road safety. The record leads to the quantification of the safety provided by a road section to its users by awarding safety scores (Star Rating Scores). The Star Rating Scores express the safety capacity of a road section in a 5-Star scale. This quantification aims at identifying the most appropriate countermeasures, which will increase the infrastructure’s road safety score. The Safer Roads Investment Plan (SRIP) includes all the countermeasures proved able to provide the greater safety capacity and maximize the benefit over spent cost of the planned investments. Thus, the SRIPs are considered as a valuable tool for the authorities, stakeholders and investors in order to decide for the most cost-effective and efficient road infrastructure investments.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 7 1.6.1 Measuring the road infrastructure safety
The assessment of the road safety requires Road Safety Inspections of the road network sections and the assignment of a safety score to them. The inspection is conducted by visual observation and recording of the road infrastructure elements which are related - directly or not - to road safety and have a proven influence on the likelihood of an accident or its severity. The RAP uses two types of inspection: drive-through and video-based inspection. During the first one, recording of the infrastructure’s elements is performed manually, with the help of the specialized software, while during the second type of inspection, a specially equipped vehicle is used, so that the recorded video could be used for a virtual drive-through of the network and an automated identification of the infrastructure’s elements. Following the survey, the Road Protection Score (RPS) is calculated. The RPS is a unit-less indicator, which depicts the infrastructure’s safety capacity for each road user type and it is calculated for 100m road segments. Road user types include the following vulnerable road users: car occupants, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians, who may be involved in road accidents. The respective RPS is calculated for each road user type and each of the 100m road segmentation, in the following way: RPS = RPS = L n,u n,u,c n,u,c * Sn,u,c * OSn,u,c * EFIn,u,c * MTn,u,c c c where “n” is the number of 100m road segment, “u” the type of road user and “c” the crash type that the road user type “u” may be involved in. The following variables are taken into consideration: L: Likelihood that the “i” crash may be initiated, S: Severity of the “i” crash, OS: Degree to which risk changes with the Operating Speed for the specific “i” crash type, EFL: Degree to which a person’s risk of being involved in the “i” type of crash is a function of another person’s use of the road (External Flow Influence), MT: Potential that an errant vehicle will cross a median (Median Traversability).
1.6.2 The Star Rating process
The aim of the Star Rating process is awarding the “n” 100m road segments with Stars, depicting the safety offered to each of the “u” road user types. The Star Rating system uses the typical international practice of recognising the best performing category as 5-star and the worst as 1-star (5-star scale), so that a 5-star road means that the probability of a crash occurrence, which may lead to death or serious injury, is very low. The Star Rate is determined by assigning each RPS calculated to the Star Rating bands. The thresholds of each band are different for each road user and were set following the significant sensitivity testing to determine how RPS varies with changes in road infrastructure elements. The assignment procedure leads to the development of a risk-worm chart, which depicts the variation of the RPS score in relation to the position (distance from the beginning) of the road under consideration. The final output of the Star Rating is the Star Rating Maps, in which the “n” road sections are shown with different colour, depending on their Star award (5-star green and 1-star black).
1.6.3 Developing the Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIPs)
The development of the most appropriate SRIP presupposes the assessment of the number of fatalities and serious injuries that could be prevented for each 100m road segment, on an annual basis, if a set of countermeasures is applied. The number of fatalities is calculated as follows: F = F n n,u,c u c where “n” is the number of the 100m road segment, “u” the type of road user, “c” the crash type that the road user “u” may be involved in and F the number of fatalities that can be prevented in a time period of 20 years, given that a specific set of countermeasures is applied. The number is related to four main factors: (1) the safety score of the specific road segment, (2) the “u” road users flow, (3) the fatality growth, which indicates the underlying trend in road fatalities and (4) the calibration
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 8 factor, which inserts the actual number of fatalities that occur on the specific road section. The calculation of this factor presupposes the existence of similar crash data. The assessment of the number of serious injuries that could be prevented in a 100m road segment is the function of the Fn,u,c value and the ratio of the actual number of serious injuries to the actual number of fatalities to the relevant number of fatalities. In case the appropriate data are missing, the competent authorities should estimate this actual number as previously, or the ratio of 10 serious injuries to 1 death is used, which is proposed by McMahon and Dahdah (2008)2. The next step in establishing the SRIPs is the identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Countermeasures are the engineering improvements that the road authorities should take in order to reduce the rate of fatalities and serious injuries. Each countermeasure is characterized by its trigger sets and its effectiveness for each of the 100m road segments. Each trigger set describes all the cases in which this certain countermeasure can be used. The effectiveness is calculated according to the number of fatalities and serious injuries that can be prevented in this segment and the RPS of this segment before and after the application of the countermeasure. It is important to mention that in the case that multiple countermeasures act on a certain road segment, the total effectiveness is not the simple sum of each countermeasure’s effectiveness. Instead, a reduction factor should act, which calibrates the total effectiveness. The procedure of selecting the most appropriate countermeasures is the basis for the techno-economic analysis of the investment plan, with the aim of calculating the Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) for each countermeasure. The economic benefit is considered as the benefit of preventing a death or a serious injury. The calculations are conducted following the assumption that the cost of a human life is 70 times the GDP per capita, the cost of a serious injury is the 25% of the cost of a human life and the ratio of 10 serious injuries for 1 death, if more accurate information is not available. The countermeasure cost includes all the construction costs, the maintenance costs over a 20 year period and/or probable reconstruction costs. All the benefits/costs should reflect the actual local prices, taking into account the economic life of each countermeasure and the discount rate. The outcome of this procedure is the BCR calculation for each countermeasure applied to a specific road segment. The SRIP is conducted for a period of 20 years and shows the list of the most cost effective improvements that are able to reduce the crash risk for all road user types. In that way the SRIP enables the road authorities to set the priorities properly when developing infrastructure‘s maintenance and/or rehabilitation plans.
2 http://www.irap.org/en/about-irap-3/research-and-technical-papers?download=45:the-true-cost-of-road- crashes-valuing-life-and-the-cost-of-a-serious-injury-espaol
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 9 1.7 Work Schedule
The overall work schedule of the Egypt Road Safety Assessment project is shown in Table
Table 1 Overall work schedule
Programme task Date
Inception visit September 2012 Project launch January 2014 Road survey February 2014
Road coding and training February 2014 Background data collation May-June 2014 Star Rating and Safer Roads Investment Plan Analysis September-October 2014
Consultation on results and additional training November 2014 Reporting of results December 2014
Figure 2 Project launch
Figure 3 Survey and coding training
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 10 Figure 4 Supporting data collection and iRAP online software ViDA training
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 11 2 Road network
The roads inspected are managed by the General Authority of Roads, Bridges and Land Transport (GARBLT). There are 13 road sections inspected, which are shown in Figure 5. The surveyed network is 2,139 km long, but as some divided roads are surveyed in both directions, the survey length is 3,273 carriageway kilometres. The road network inspected includes the majority of the 10% of the roads in Egypt that carry the highest volume and have frequent high severity crashes per km per year. Security concerns meant that the survey was shortened from that originally contemplated to the network shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Road network
Details of the inspected network are also given in the Table 2.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 12 Table 2 Road network
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km)
11 F01 (El Ain Sokhna – El 68 1,9 66,1 Zafarana)
11 F02 (El Zafarana – Ras 98 98 0 Ghareb) 11 11 F03 (Ras Ghareb – Hurghada) 92 92 0 11 F04 (Hurghada – Safaga) 107 107 0 11 R01 (Safaga – Hurghada) 41 41 0 11 R02 (Hurghada - Ras Ghareb) 161 161 0 11 R03 (Ras Ghareb - El 106 106 0 Zafarana)
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km)
139 R01 (Aswan – Edfu) 97 0 97 139 139 R02 (Edfu – Ad Dimuqrat) 102 0 102 139 R03 (Ad Dimuqrat – Qena) 126 0 126
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 15 15 F01 (Cairo – Al Ismailia desert 62 62 0 road) 15 R01 (Al Ismailia desert road – 62 62 0 Cairo)
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 16 16 F01 (Cairo – Suez) 90 90 0 16 R01 (Suez – Cairo) 90 90 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 17 17 F01 (Cairo – Bilbeis) 24 24 0 17 R01 (Bilbeis – Cairo) 24 24 0
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 13
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 176 176 F01 (Cairo – El Ain Sokhna) 89 89 0 176 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – Cairo) 89 89 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km)
21 F01 (Cairo – Tanta) 69 69 0 21 21 F02 (Tanta – Alexandria) 113 113 0 21 R01 (Tanta – Alexandria) 113 113 0 21 R02 (Cairo – Tanta) 69 69 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 221 221 F01 (Cairo – El Faiyum) 36 36 0 221 R01 (El Faiyum – Cairo) 36 36 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 244 244 F01 (Safaga – Qena) 151 31 120 244 R01 (Qena – Safaga) 28 28 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 25_195 25_195 F01 177 0 177 (Aswan – Ameda Temples jn.) 25_195 F02 84 0 84 (Ameda Temples jn – Abu Simbel)
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 14
35 F01 (Cairo – Maghaghah) 135 135 0 35 F02 (Maghaghah – Dayrout) 145 145 0
35 35 F03 (Dayrout – Asyut) 72 72 0 35 R01 (Asyut – Dayrout) 72 72 0 35 R02 (Dayrout – Maghaghah 146 146 0 35 R03 (Maghaghah - Cairo) 135 135 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 516 516 F01 (Cairo Ring road) 24 24 0 516 R01 (Cairo Ring road) 24 24 0
Road Description Survey Length Divided length Undivided length name (km) (km) (km) 517_11 517_11 F01 (Suez – El Ain 59 59 0 Sokhna) 517_11 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – 119 119 0 Suez)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 15 3 Data Collection
3.1 Road Survey
Figure 6 The survey vehicle The iRAP Egypt road survey commenced in February 2014 and was undertaken by the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) working with the Indian Road Safety Survey and Management pvt Ltd using a digital imaging system, imported from Australia and fitted onto a local vehicle. The survey team collected a detailed panoramic view of more than 3,200 carriageway kilometres of the Egypt road network. The survey was carried out using the Hawkeye 2000 digital imaging system with three high resolution cameras (1280 x 960 pixels), manufactured by the ARRB Group. Together, the three cameras recorded a panoramic view of the road and roadside verges in front of the vehicle. The image was sufficiently wide to identify intersections, roadside usage and also roadside hazards. These images were collected every 10 metres of travel. A roof rack which arrived with the equipment was fitted onto the vehicle and the cameras attached, whilst the cabling from the cameras to the rack were routed through the window. A specialised mounting bracket for the distance measuring device was also attached to the vehicle, at the rear wheel arch. The cameras were also calibrated to allow the measurement of particular features of the road, such as lane and shoulder widths and distance to road side hazards which are important components in the safety assessment of the road. The stakeholders’ logos were put on the vehicle, which was demonstrated at the official project launch.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 16 Figure 7 Project launch at GARBLT
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 17 Figure 8 Discussing the road survey details
Figure 9 Survey equipment
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 18 Figure 10 Calibration
Figure 11 Work in the field
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 19 3.2 Coding the data
After the completion of the road inspection phase, the process of coding of video material took place. The coding of the roads listed in Table 4 was undertaken by the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), in association with the Indian Road Survey Management (IRSM). The coding of the recorded video material was carried out on the basis of the iRAP Star Rating Coding Manual. The coding manual is of version 3 RAP-SR-2.2 Star Rating coding manual. The coding task was completed by 6 coders. The coding staff used the Hawkeye 2000 software to rate some 30 road infrastructure features at 100 metre intervals along the road. The features coded by the team include: 1. Carriageway label 2. Upgrade cost 3. Motorcycle flow observed 4. Bicycle flow observed 5. Pedestrian flow observed across the road 6. Pedestrian flow observed along the road 7. Land use 8. Area type 9. Speed limits 10. Median type 11. Roadside severity – objects 12. Roadside severity – distance 13. Paved shoulder 14. Intersection type, quality and volume 15. Property access points 16. Number of lanes 17. Lane width 18. Curvature 19. Quality of curve 20. Grade 21. Road condition 22. Skid resistance/grip 23. Delineation 24. Street lighting 25. Pedestrian crossing facilities, quality 26. Speed management/traffic calming 27. Vehicle parking 28. Sidewalk provision 29. Facilities for motorcycles 30. Facilities for bicycles
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 20 More details on the features coded are available in the iRAP Inspection Manual.
Figure 12 Training of the coders
Figure 13 Screenshots from the coding software
It is highly significant that the results of the coding work be of good quality. In order to achieve that, the following actions must be undertaken: Before the coding, all the members of the coding team sit together, code a short section together and have a discussion in order to make sure everybody’s feeling on the coding item is consistent. During the coding, each specific situation is recorded and given special attention and discussion.
After the coding, the results of the coders are checked at random. References of important attributes are checked on the Google Earth satellite image. The quality assurance process was the next important phase of the coding process and assessed whether the road attributes captured in the road inspection had been coded correctly. The Quality Assurance of the specific dataset was performed by the Serbian AMSS-CMV which is an accredited iRAP supplier.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 21 3.3 Traffic volumes
Traffic volume data are used in the iRAP model as a multiplier for the estimation of the number of deaths and serious injuries that could be prevented on the roads. Traffic volume data for the Egypt road assessment program have been collected by the GARBLT staff. Following the results of the traffic flow data collection, the sections identified as having the highest traffic volumes are shown in Table.
Table 3 Sections having the highest traffic volumes
Section AADT(V) Road 21 ( subsection F02) 35,830 Road 517_11 20,258 Road 16 20,258 Road 17 28,820 Road 221 20,344
The detailed, per section traffic volumes of the network are shown in Annex 2.
3.4 Pedestrian and bicycle volume
The ViDA model also requires the inputs on four types of flows for each 100m section of the surveyed network:
Pedestrian peak hour flow across the road Pedestrian peak hour flow along the driver-side Pedestrian peak hour flow along the passenger-side Bicyclist peak hour flow along the road
These types of data are difficult to obtain as there are no relevant measurements. To overcome this issue, appropriate estimations were made using the RAP pre-processor tool. This tool estimates the pedestrians and bicyclists flows based on the coded attributes such as Land use, Area type, Pedestrian crossing facilities, Sidewalk provision, etc. The basic flows and the multiplier matrix for various land use along the road are displayed in the following Figures. Precise measures of bicycle and pedestrian flow are unavailable in Egypt but the matrices provide estimates of relative activity and GARBLT engineers were consulted for details of local variation on this.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 22 Figure 14 Pedestrian flows
Figure 15 Bicycle flows
Because of the lack of adequate sidewalks and pedestrian facilities to cross the road, pedestrians are not physically separated from traffic, but walk together with vehicles, which is particularly dangerous for children and older pedestrians.
Figure 16 Pedestrian crossing risk
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 23 3.5 Operating speed
Speed management is a critical aspect of managing a safe road system. The risk of death or serious injury is minimised in any crash, where:
vulnerable road users (e.g. motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians) are physically separated from cars and heavier vehicles, or traffic speeds are 40km/h or less opposing traffic is physically separated and roadside hazards are well managed traffic speeds are 70km/h or less for occupants of cars on roads where opposing traffic is not physically separated or roadside hazards exist
The main issue which has emerged from inspections in iRAP’s pilot countries is how to deal with discrepancies between permitted (posted) speeds and the speeds at which drivers generally drive. In some locations, for example, posted speed limits are set at very low speeds that are unlikely to be achieved without continuous enforcement or robust traffic calming measures.The level of risk of death or serious injury on a road is highly dependent on the speed at which traffic travels. iRAP policy is that risk assessments are made using the ‘operating speed’ on a road. Operating speed is defined as being the greater of the legislated speed limit or the measured 85th percentile speed.
Nevertheless, speed data are not usually available for each individual road or section at frequent intervals and, in the absence of detailed information, it is necessary to make assumptions about general speeds on the network, based on the available data and local knowledge. Many EuroRAP and iRAP speed surveys have found out that it is not uncommon for 85th percentile speeds to exceed the speed limit by 10-20 km/h over the range of speeds. In the technical working group meetings in May 2014 it was agreed that it should be assumed that the 85th percentile operating speed exceeded the posted speed limit by 20km/h.
Table 4 Speed limits and operating speeds
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h)
11 F01 (El Ain Sokhna – El Zafarana) 100 105
11 F02 (El Zafarana – Ras Ghareb) 100 110
11 11 F03 (Ras Ghareb – Hurghada) 100 120 11 F04 (Hurghada – Safaga) 100 120 11 R01 (Safaga – Hurghada) 100 120 11 R02 (Hurghada - Ras Ghareb) 100 120 11 R03 (Ras Ghareb - El Zafarana) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h)
139 R01 (Aswan – Edfu) 90 120
139 139 R02 (Edfu – Ad Dimuqrat) 90 120 139 R03 (Ad Dimuqrat – Qena) 100 120
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 24
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 15 15 F01(Cairo – Al Ismailia desert 100 120 road) 15 R01(Al Ismailia desert road – Cairo) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 16 16 F01 (Cairo – Suez) 100 120 16 R01 (Suez – Cairo) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 17 17 F01 (Cairo – Bilbeis) 100 120 17 R01 (Bilbeis – Cairo) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 176 176 F01 (Cairo – El Ain Sokhna) 100 120 176 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – Cairo) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h)
21 F01 (Cairo – Tanta) 60-90 80-110
21 21 F02 (Tanta – Alexandria) 90-100 110-120 21 R01 (Tanta – Alexandria) 90-100 110-120 21 R02 (Cairo – Tanta) 60-90 80-110
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 221 221 F01 (Cairo – El Faiyum) 100 120 221 R01 (El Faiyum – Cairo) 100 120
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 25
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 244 244 F01 (Safaga – Qena) 100 120 244 R01 (Qena – Safaga) 100 120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 25_195 25_195 F01 90 110 (Aswan – Ameda Temples jn.) 25_195 F02 100 120 (Ameda Temples jn – Abu Simbel)
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h)
35 F01 (Cairo – Maghaghah) 90-100 110-120
35 F02 (Maghaghah – Dayrout) 90-100 110-120
35 35 F03 (Dayrout – Asyut) 90-100 110-120 35 R01 (Asyut – Dayrout) 90-100 110-120 35 R02 (Dayrout – Maghaghah 90-100 110-120 35 R03 (Maghaghah - Cairo) 90-100 110-120
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 516 516 F01 (Cairo Ring road) 90 110 516 R01 (Cairo Ring road) 90 110
Road Description Speed limit Operating speed name 85th % (km/h) ( km/h) 517_11 517_11 F01 (Suez – El Ain Sokhna) 90-100 110-120 517_11 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – Suez) 90-100 110-120
According to speed data provided by the GARBLT staff, it was found out that the 85th % speed exceed the speed limit by 20 km/h over a range of speeds and as such it is used in this work.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 26 3.6 Crash data
All deaths in Egypt are reported to the health system and a death certificate is completed for all deaths. This information is fed into the mortality information system and analysed at the national information centre. Limited information is available on road injuries and deaths. On the more severe crashes, details such as location and time, basic details of vehicles, casualties and contributory factors are available. These figures have shown inconsistencies in coverage and reporting. It is noticeable that during recent periods of civil unrest there has been gross under-reporting. For the year 2008 (the most recent for which reliable data are available), 340 deaths have been reported on the surveyed network. An underreporting of 50% has been assumed and therefore a true number of road deaths of 510. This estimate is supported by GARBLT. GARBLT was not able to supply data disaggregated by casualty class but, reflecting the character of the network, the following disaggregation of fatalities has been assumed: vehicle occupants (306), motorcyclists (51, although subsequently not modelled fully due to insufficient information about their distribution on the network3), pedestrians (127.5) and bicyclists (25.5). It is assumed that generally there are 10 serious casualties to 1 fatal. The iRAP methodology assumes that for the purposes of calibration, two-thirds of vehicle occupant and motorcyclist casualties may respond to infrastructure countermeasures.
Table 5 2008 road accident fatalities
2008
Total assumed deaths in road accidents on total GARBLT 1,276 network
Table 6 Number of fatalities on the surveyed road network
Survey carriageway length 3273 km
Total number of deaths modelled 317 as amenable to countermeasures
3 Countermeasure recommendations to be assessed separately and in consultation with GARBLT
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 27 Table 7 Distribution of deaths by road user type modelled (per year, on the surveyed network)
Road user type No. of deaths %
Vehicles Occupants 222.8 70
Pedestrians 88.3 28
Bicycles 5.5 2
Table 8 Distribution of deaths by crash type (per year, on the surveyed network)
Vehicles Occupant crash type % Totals
Car Run-Off LOC Driver side 20 % 44,6
Car Run-Off LOC Passenger side 20 % 44,6
Car Head-On LOC 20 % 44,6
Car Head- On Overtaking 10 % 22,3
Car Intersection 28 % 62,4
Car Property Access 2 % 4,5
100% 228,8
Pedestrian crash type % Totals
Pedestrian Along 20 % 17,7
Pedestrian Crossing Side-Road 5 % 4,4
Pedestrian Crossing Through-Road 75 % 66,2
100 % 88,3
Bicycle crash type % Totals
Bicycle Along 20 % 1,1
Bicycle Intersection 78 % 4,3
Bicycle Run – Off 2 % 0,1
100 % 5,5
The following tables contain the number of fatalities calibration in Egypt that are needed and used to support the selection of countermeasures, economic analysis, and the predicted casualty reduction plan, over 20 years.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 28 Table 9 Fatality estimations – Car occupants, pedestrians, bicyclists Fatality estimation – Car
Variable Calibration factor AADT Multiplier AADT Power
Car Run-Off LOC Driver side 1,9 1 1
Car Run-Off LOC Passenger side 2,2 1 1
Car Head-On LOC 6,5 1 1
Car Head- On Overtaking 42,9 1 1
Car Intersection 103,6 1 1
Car Property Access 23,6 1 1
Fatality estimation – Pedestrian
Variable Calibration factor AADT Multiplier AADT Power
Pedestrian Along 0,6 1 1
Pedestrian Crossing Side-Road 10,6 1 1
Pedestrian Crossing Through-Road 4,7 1 1
Fatality estimation – Bicycle
Variable Calibration factor AADT Multiplier AADT Power
Bicycle Along 0,02 1 1
Bicycle Intersection 17,4 1 1
Bicycle Run - Off 8,4 1 1
3.7 Countermeasure costs
The iRAP model requires inputs concerning local construction and maintenance costs for the 70 countermeasures that are considered when developing the Safer Roads Investment Plans. The costs are categorised by area type (urban, semi-urban and rural) and upper and lower costs (low, medium and high). The countermeasure cost estimates used in this study are attached in Appendix 2. In the absence of suitable countermeasure costs for Egypt, it was agreed that costs based on those from Yemen with an appropriate GDP adjustment factor should be used. 2014 GDP per capita at current prices is 3,333 USD (Egypt) and 1,572 USD (Yemen). A GDP/capita-related uplift of 1.67 has been made on the Yemen values, this reflecting the fact that not all costs within the countermeasures can be related to GDP factors such as labour costs.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 29 3.8 Economic data
RAP uses a standard approach globally to estimate the economic cost of deaths and serious injuries. The economic data were collected from the IMF and other websites in the prescribed manner.
Table 12 Economic data
Category Units / Description Data
Current year 2014
Year in which the analysis was Assessment Year 2014 carried out.
Side of the road driven on Left or right right
Analysis period Years - default 20 years 20
GDP per capita* In local currency (current prices) 23146
Discount rate (%) % 12
Minimum attractive Rate of Discount Rate / 100 or user 0,12 Return defined
Internal Rate of Return % 0,12
Value of Life Multiplier Default 70 70
In local currency (EGP) – Official Value of Life National Figure or (GDP per 1,620,220 capita * Value of Life Multiplier)
Value of Serious Injury Multiplier Default 0.25 0,25
In local currency (EGP) – Official Value of Serious Injury National Figure of (Value of Life x 405,055 Value of Serious Injury Multiplier)
Serious injuries to fatalities ratio 10
*The GDP per capita for Egypt comes from the IMF World Economic Outlook Databases, while the remaining Economic data come from the default value of iRAP.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 30 4 Detailed Road Condition Report
A detailed condition report is a constituent part of any road assessment survey and report and is therefore important for all the stakeholders. The attributes obtained on the basis of survey data are listed in Table 9. In addition, more details are available at http://vida.irap.org/en-gb/reports/tables/detailed_conditions.
Table 13 Detailed information about the road Roadside Roadside severity-driver side distance km % 0 to < 1m 245.5 8 1 to < 5m 1283.7 39 5 to < 10m 410 13 >= 10m 1324.7 40
Roadside severity-driver side object km % Safety barrier – metal 11.4 8 Safety barrier - concrete 455.3 14 Agressive vertical face 38.2 1 Upwards slope – rollover gradient 260 8 Upwards slope – no rollover gradient 117.7 4 Deep drainage ditch 3.8 0 Downwards slope 22 1 Tree >= 10cm dia. 67.4 2 Sign, post or pole >= 10cm dia. 680 21 Rigid structure/bridge or building 60.9 2 Semi-rigid structure or building 122.9 4 Unprotected safety barrier end 267.7 8 Large boulders >= 20cm high 123.4 4 None 1042.2 32
Roadside severity-passenger side distance km % 0 to < 1m 73 2 1 to < 5m 1340.9 41 5 to < 10m 521.6 16 >= 10m 1337.4 41
Roadside severity- passenger side object km % Safety barrier - metal 125.3 4 Safety barrier - concrete 114.8 4 Agressive vertical face 51.1 2
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 31
Upwards slope – rollover gradient 304.1 9 Upwards slope – no rollover gradient 157.8 5 Deep drainage ditch 33.5 1 Downwards slope 74.9 2 Cliff 0.2 0 Tree >= 10cm dia. 131.5 4 Sign, post or pole >= 10cm dia. 525.3 16 Rigid structure/bridge or building 106.5 3 Semi-rigid structure or building 183.1 6 Unprotected safety barrier end 142.6 4 Large boulders >= 20cm high 143.3 4 None 1178.9 36 Shoulder rumble strips km % Not present 3.272.9 100
Paved shoulder – driver side km % Wide (>=2.4m) 4.5 0 Medium (>=1m to <2.4m) 827.8 25 Narrow (>=0m to <1m) 1481.6 45 None 959 29
Paved shoulder – passenger side km % Wide (>=2.4m) 292.8 9 Medium (>=1m to <2.4m) 1659.1 51 Narrow (>=0m to <1m) 223.2 7 None 1097.8 34
Mid-block Carriageway label km % Carriageway A of a divided carriageway road 1248 38 Carriageway B of a divided carriageway road 1265.1 39 Undivided road 759.8 23
Upgrade cost km % Low 2316 71 Medium 688.2 21 High 268.7 8
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 32
Median type km % Safety barrier - metal 26.5 1 Safety barrier - concrete 675.8 21 Physical median width >= 20m 923.3 28 Physical median width >= 10m to <20m 598.6 18 Physical median width >= 5m to <10m 131.8 4 Physical median width >= 1m to <5m 137 4 Physical median width >= 0m to <1m 20.1 1 Centre line 759.8 23
Centreline rumble strips km % Not present 3.272.9 100
Number of lanes km % One 759.8 23 Two 1778.4 54 Three 609.1 19 Four or more 125.6 4
Lane width km % Wide (>=3.25m) 3.272.9 100
Curvature km % Straight or gently curving 2918.6 89 Moderate 334.2 10 Sharp 20.1 1
Quality of curve km % Adequate 345.9 11 Poor 9 0 Not applicable 2918 89
Grade km % >= 0% to < 7.5% 3173.8 97 >= 7.5% to < 10% 99.1 3
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 33
Road condition km % Good 3205.6 98 Medium 65.7 2 Poor 1.6 0
Skid resistance / grip km % Sealed - adequate 2984.8 91 Sealed - medium 286.7 9 Sealed – poor 0.4 0 Unsealed - adequate 0.4 0 Unsealed - poor 0.6 0
Delineation km % Adequate 1929.7 59 Poor 1343.2 41
Street lighting km % Not present 2060.5 63 Present 1212.4 37
Vehicle parking km % Low 3155.1 96 Medium 112.8 3 High 5.0 0
Service road km % Not present 3217.7 98 Present 55.2 2
Roadworks km % No road works 3200.4 98 Minor road works in progress 70.9 2 Major road works in progress 1.6 0
Sight distance km % Adequate 3272.4 100 Poor 0.5 0
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 34 Intersections Intersection type km % Merge lane 33.8 1 Roundabout 0.7 0 3-leg (unsignalised) with protected turn lane 0.7 0 3-leg (unsignalised) with no protected turn lane 13.3 0 4-leg (unsignalised) with no protected turn lane 1.7 0 None 3143.3 96 Railway Crossing – passive (signs only) 0.6 0 Railway Crossing – active (flashing lights / boom gates) 0.4 0 Median crossing point - informal 56 2 Median crossing point - formal 22.4 1
Intersection channelisation km % Not present 3246.8 99 Present 26.1 1
Intersection road volume km % 5000 to 10000 vehicles 0.1 0 1000 to 5000 vehicles 2.5 0 100 to 1000 vehicles 82.8 3 1 to 100 vehicles 44.2 1 None 3143.3 96
Intersection quality km % Adequate 69.7 2 Poor 59.9 2 Not applicable 3143.3 96
Property acess points km % Commercial Access 1+ 310 9 Residential Access 3+ 0.6 0 Residential Access 1 or 2 37.9 1 None 2924.4 86
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 35 Flow Vehicle flow (AADT) km % 1000 – 5000 1367.3 42 5000 - 10000 830.5 25 10000 - 15000 185.6 6 15000 – 20000 68 2 20000 – 40000 821.5 25
Motorcyclist observed flow km % None 3245.9 99 1 motorcyclist observed 23.9 1 2 to 3 motorcyclist observed 2.8 0 4 to 5 motorcyclist observed 0.3 0
Bicyclist observed flow km % None 3268.8 100 1 bicycle observed 3.9 0 2 to 3 bicycle observed 0.2 0
Pedestrian observed flow across the road km % None 3263.2 100 1 pedestrian crossing observed 6.3 1
2 to 3 pedestrians crossing observed 2.4 0 4 to 5 pedestrians crossing observed 0.8 0 6 to 7 pedestrians crossing observed 0.1 0 8+ pedestrians crossing observed 0.1 0
Pedestrian observed flow along road driver - side km % None 33241.1 99 1 pedestrian crossing observed 17.2 1 2 to 3 pedestrians crossing observed 11 0 4 to 5 pedestrians crossing observed 2.2 0 6 to 7 pedestrians crossing observed 0.5 0
8+ pedestrians crossing observed 0.9 0
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 36
Pedestrian observed flow along road passenger - side km % None 3157 96 1 pedestrian crossing observed 50.4 2 2 to 3 pedestrians crossing observed 41.1 1 4 to 5 pedestrians crossing observed 11.2 0 6 to 7 pedestrians crossing observed 5.5 0 8+ pedestrians crossing observed 7.7 0
Motorcyclist % km % Not recorded 3272.9 100
Pedestrian peak hour flow across the road km % 0 3127.2 96 1 to 5 107.7 3 6 to 25 38 1
Pedestrian peak hour flow along the road driver - side km % 0 3232 96 1 to 5 30.9 1 6 to 25 10 0
Pedestrian peak hour flow along the road passenger - side km % 0 2809.4 86 1 to 5 220.3 7 6 to 25 243.2 7
Bicyclist peak hour flow km % None 2641.8 81 1 to 5 362.4 11 6 to 25 268.7 8
VRU facilities and land use Land use - driver side km % Undeveloped areas 3225.9 99 Framing and agricultural 28.2 1 Residential 2.5 0 Commercial 16.3 0
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 37
Land use – passenger side km % Undeveloped areas 3053.2 93 Framing and agricultural 87.7 3 Residential 23.4 1 Commercial 105.7 3 Educational 0.6 0 Industrial and manufacturing 2.3 0
Area type km % Rural / open areas 3199.4 98 Urban / rural town or village 73.5 2
Pedestrian crossing facilities – inspected road km % Grade separated facility 3.6 0 Usignalised marked crossing without a refuge 0.2 0 Refuge only 1.0 0 No facility 3268.1 100
Pedestrian crossing quality km % Adequate 4.6 0 Poor 0.2 0 Not applicable 3268.1 100
Pedestrian crossing facilities – intersecting road km % No facility 3272.9 100
Pedestrian fencing km % Not present 3272.9 100
Sidewalk – driver side km %
Non-physical separation >= 3m 1.8 0
Non-physical separation 1m to < 3m 8.3 0
Non-physical separation 0m to < 1m 45.1 1 None 3209.3 98
Informal path >= 1m 5.2 0
Informal path 0m to < 1m 3.2 0
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 38
Sidewalk – passenger side km % Non-physical separation >= 3m 26.2 1 Non-physical separation 1m to < 3m 22.3 1 Non-physical separation 0m to < 1m 52.2 2 None 3068.3 94 Informal path >= 1m 5.2 0 Informal path 0m to < 1m 98.7 3
Facilities for motorised two wheelers km % None 3272.9 100
Facilities for bicycles km % None 3272.9 100
School zone warning km % School zone static signs or road markings 0.2 0 No school zone warning 0.4 0 Not applicable (no school at the location) 3272.3 100
School zone crossing supervisor km % School zone crossing supervisor not present 0.6 0 Not applicable (no school at the location) 3272.3 100 Speeds Speed limit km % < 30 km/h 2.3 0 40 km/h 5.3 0 50 km/h 2.4 0 60 km/h 180.3 6 90 km/h 1420.5 43 100 km/h 1333.3 41 110 km/h 328.8 10
Motorcyclist speed limit km % < 30 km/h 0.3 0 40 km/h 5.3 0 50 km/h 2.4 0 60 km/h 180.3 6 90 km/h 1420.5 43
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 39
100 km/h 1333.3 41 110 km/h 328.8 10
Truck speed limit km % 40 km/h 5.3 0 50 km/h 2.4 0 60 km/h 378.4 12 70 km/h 1179.1 36 80 km/h 167.8 5 90 km/h 363.5 11 100 km/h 1031.3 32 110 km/h 145.1 4
Differential speed limits km % Present 3272.9 100
Speed management / traffic calming km % Not present 3231.3 99 Present 41.6 1
Operating Speed (85th percentile) km % < 30 km/h 0.3 0 60 km/h 5.3 0 70 km/h 2.4 0 80 km/h 178.9 5 105 km/h 2.8 0 110 km/h 1225.9 37 120 km/h 1528.5 47 130 km/h 328.8 10
Operating Speed (mean) km % < 30 km/h 0.3 0 40 km/h 5.3 0 50 km/h 2.4 0 60 km/h 180.3 6 90 km/h 1422.5 43 100 km/h 1333.3 41 110 km/h 328.8 10
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 40 Policy targets Roads that cars can read km % Does not meet specification 3272.9 100
Vehicle Occupant Star Rating Policy Target km % Not applicable 3272.9 100
Motorcyclist Star Rating Policy Target km % Not applicable 3272.9 100
Pedestrian Star Rating Policy Target km % Not applicable 3272.9 100
Bicyclist Star Rating Policy Target km % Not applicable 3272.9 100
As was discussed in Section 3.2 of this report, the rating team assessed the condition of more than 30 road infrastructure elements, at 100 metre intervals throughout the network. This assessment shows that the network is mainly a dual carriageway (77%) with undivided (23%) lanes traversing mainly rural/open areas (98%). Throughout the network, lanes are wider than 3.25 metres (100%). Shoulders are paved (67%) and sealed and are 1.0 to 2.4 m wide (medium), on the passenger’s side (51%). Many of the roads traverse desert terrain, which is reflected by the fact that (89%) of the roads have straight or gently curves. Forty percent (40%) of the road length has safe roadsides (right side), whereas the majority of the road network length has unprotected fixed objects close to the travelling lanes. The most common type of intersections are formal median crossing points and merge lanes. The maximum posted speed limits are mostly 90/100km/h (84%), whereas the speed of the remaining roads is generally posted at 60km/h. As for the pedestrian facilities, they do not exist in 99% of the inspected roads, i.e. there is a very small number of signalized pedestrian crossings, with or without traffic lights, refuges and grade separated facilities. The same goes for bicyclist facilities. When it comes to hazardous objects, at the side of a driver or passenger at the front seat, such objects are recorded in about 60% of the surveyed road network. These objects include poles of a diameter greater than 10cm, unprotected barrier ends, steep slopes and trees, etc. Filtering of the data to identify known crash situations and circumstances demonstrates under-provision of protection and for particular road-users (see Figure 16a).
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 41 Figure 16a Filtering of data to illustrate under-provision of road safety elements
Figure 16b Consultation on the results in November 2014 with the GARBLT road safety team
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 42 5 Road safety assessment results
Based on the analysis of the coded survey data and safety indicators, i.e. background data, the roads are star rated for safety using iRAP methodology. Star ratings are given for vulnerable road user categories: vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
5.1 Overall Star Ratings Results
The overall Star Ratings for the road sections assessed are shown below in Table 14. 1-star roads are those with the highest risk and 5-star roads have the least risk.
Table 14 Star Rating results of the inspected network
Vehicle Occupant Motorcycle Pedestrian Bicycle Star Ratings Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent (km) (km) (km) (km) 5 Stars 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0.% 4 Stars 184.8 6% 9.0 0% 22.5 1% 0.0 0.% 3 Stars 1319.7 40% 737.2 23% 36.9 1% 39.4 1% 2 Stars 1176.3 36% 1480.5 45% 86.8 3% 188.3 6% 1 Star 590.5 18% 1044.6 32% 371.2 11% 402.8 12% 1.6 0% 1.6 0% 2755.5 84% 2642.4 81% Not applicable*
Totals 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100%
The results show that no road on the 3,273km long surveyed network was awarded 5 stars for vehicle occupants. Only 6% of the roads scored 4 stars for the car occupant safety. 40% of the network was awarded 3 stars, while 54% of the roads scored only 1 star or 2 stars. The network was rated less well for motorcyclists, with only 23% achieving a 3-star rating. Road sections for other vulnerable road users rated even worse, only 2% of the network achieving a 3-star or better rating for pedestrians and 1% for bicyclists, the remainder either 1-star or 2-star. The Star Rating results from the table above are also shown on the maps below.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 43 Figure 17 Star Rating map for vehicle occupants
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 44 Figure 17a Star Rating map for motorcyclists
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 45 Figure 18 Star Rating map for pedestrians
Figure 19 Star Rating map for bicycles
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 46 The lack of pedestrian facilities evident in the following examples are indicative of the problem.
Figure 20 Example 1 – No sidewalk provision (Road 139)
Figure 21 Example 2 – Absence of a pedestrian footpath and pedestrian crossing (Road 21)
Figure 22 Example 3 – Absence of a pedestrian footpath and pedestrian crossing
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 47 5.2 Egypt compared with other countries
It is noticeable that the percentage distribution of vehicle occupant star ratings in Egypt is not dissimilar to Brazil, India and Russia. Ratings will depend on the network that is inspected and how that network is defined, so if, for example, the network that is inspected has a relatively high proportion of dual carriageway, there is likely to be a higher proportion of higher stars. Correspondingly, if a national network includes a high proportion of single carriageway roads, then it will have a higher proportion of 1- or 2-star roads than would otherwise be the case. Similarly if only part of a network is inspected, it may not be possible to make a realistic comparison of the standard of that overall network with another country. Egypt (18%) has a similar percentage of 1-star to Russia, India and Brazil (19-21%) but is better that Yemen (31%). 46% of the Egypt network is rated 3-star of above, again similar to Russia (41%), India (48%) and Brazil (51%). Yemen has 47%.
Table 14a Comparison of the distribution of Star Ratings (Smoothed) – percentage* of each star for vehicle occupants – by selected countries
Country Star Rating -- percentage Notes 1 2 3 4 5
Egypt 18 36 40 6 0 Final. V3.02 3273km
Australia 9 30 53 8 0 V3.01 National Highway network Brazil 21 27 33 12 6 Sao Paulo China 4 21 62 4 8 Anhui India 20 33 46 2 0 Kerala State Transportation Project II RS10 2012 Russia 19 41 35 4 2 Mari El Republic 4newtraffic v3.01 Spain 5 20 57 17 1 Catalonia Ukraine 2 38 57 3 0 M12-M17-M18 Yemen 31 21 24 15 8 1330km carriageway length main roads
*row totals may not sum to 100 because of rounding or a residual of unrated road sections
5.3 Detailed Star Ratings Results
Some road sections have been selected in the text below to demonstrate the Star Rating results in detail, and to explain the reasons behind the overall poor rating. They illustrate the scores for vehicle occupants. The low score in the figures below indicates a relatively low level of risk while a high score indicates a relatively high level of risk.
5.3.1 Road 25_195 (Aswan – Abu Simbel), the tourist route
This particular section starts at the town of Aswan and goes to Abu Simbel, the famous tourist site. The main terrain of this section is a desert. It is a single carriageway road whose total length is about 261 km. The operating speed of the desert section is significantly higher than the speed limit. The traffic flow on this section is approximately 1,000 - 5,000 vehicles per day. Median type on the whole section is the central line only, number of lanes is one and lane width is mainly over 3.25 m.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 48 Figure 23 Vehicle Occupant Star Rating map – before countermeasures implementation
Table 15 Vehicle Occupant Star Rating – before countermeasures are implemented
Vehicle Occupant Star Ratings Length Percent (km) 5 Stars 0,0 0% 4 Stars 10,1 4% 3 Stars 205,5 79% 2 Stars 39,8 15% 1 Star 5,1 2% Not applicable* 0,0 0% Totals 260,5 100%
The Star Rating results for this particular road are quite good. Almost 80% of the section is rated as 3-star, 15% is rated as 2-star and only 2% is rated as 1-star for vehicle occupants. To illustrate the risk distribution along the road, a specific ViDA tool can be used – the Risk Worm. The Risk Worm helps identify quickly the locations of high risk. The “spikes” in the graph usually relate to intersections, sharp curves, or similar single factors which increase the risk significantly.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 49
Chart 1 Risk Worm of the section 25_195 F01
Looking at the statistics of the coded attributes along this section, the reason for the overall good safety rating can be identified. The whole section was coded as a good road condition and almost 80% of the section was coded as having an adequate delineation. The road side severity distance on both sides of the road is over 10m, on almost 70% of the section. Likewise, on almost 65% of both sides of the section, no dangerous objects have been recorded within 10m. One of the locations with high risk distribution is shown on the pictures below.
Figure 24 A 4-leg intersection on the section 25_195 F01
The example above shows the intersection of poor quality. There is a lack of signs and road markings, protected turn lanes, pedestrian crossing facilities, etc.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 50
Figure 25 Roadside hazards on the section 25_195 F01
The above figure shows dangerous objects on both sides, which are very close to the road. The distance to the objects is 3,5m, which represents a high risk level, especially if we know that the operating speed on this section is very high.
Figure 26 Poor quality intersection on the section 25_195 F02
Figure 27 Dangerous side slopes on both sides close to the road on the section 25_195 F02
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 51 Figure 28 Dangerous objects on the driver side (poles) on the section 25_195 F01
Figure 29 No sidewalks present, section 25_195 F02
Figure 30 Example of a poor quality 4-leg intersection
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 52 5.3.2 Road 21 (Cairo – Alexandria), the agricultural route
This section starts at Cairo and ends in Alexandria. The main terrain of this section is agricultural. It is a dual carriageway road, of a total length of about 180 km. The traffic flow on this section is very high – approximately 60% of the section has the flow of 20,000 - 40,000 vehicles per day. Median type on 70% of the section is concrete barrier, number of lanes is two or three and lane width is mainly over 3,25 m.
Figure 31 Vehicle Occupant Star Rating map – before countermeasures are implemented
Table 16 Star Rating table – before countermeasures are implemented
Vehicle Occupant Bicycle Pedestrian Star Ratings Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent (km) (km) (km) 5 Stars 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 4 Stars 2,0 1% 0.0 0% 4,0 1% 3 Stars 80,6 22% 0.0 0% 4,6 1% 2 Stars 50,4 14% 42,6 12% 26,8 18% 1 Star 231,9 64% 287,3 79% 264,5 72% 0,2 0% 35,2 10% 65,2 7% Not applicable*
Totals 365,1 100% 365,1 100% 365,1 100%
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 53
As seen on the above table, the Star Rating results of this particular road are quite poor. More than a half (64%) of the section scored 1-star for vehicle occupants’ safety. The results for the pedestrians and bicyclists are almost the same as for vehicle occupants, i.e. almost 80% of the section scored 1-star. To illustrate the risk distribution along the road, a specific ViDA tool can be used – the Risk Worm.
Chart 2 Risk Worm for the section 21 F02 subsection 3
Examples of the locations with the high risk distribution are shown on pictures below.
Figure 32 Dangerous objects on the section 21 F02
Hazards on both sides, very close to the road (poles, water canal) are shown in the figure above.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 54 Figure 33 Lack of pedestrian crossing facility on the section 21 F01
Figure 34 Example of a poor quality intersection, no sidewalks or pedestrian crossing, 21 F02
Figure 35 Example of unprotected barrier ends, 21 F02
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 55 6 Safer Roads Investment Plan
6.1 Overview of the method
The making of a SRIP is preceded by the following actions, as summarized below.
6.1.1 Estimating the number of deaths and serious injuries
To enable economic evaluation of various countermeasure options, an estimate of the number of deaths and serious injuries under existing conditions on each 100 m section of road was made. As discussed earlier, it is estimated that 317 deaths occur each year on the surveyed roads in Egypt. Since the number of deaths was available only in aggregate form the deaths and serious injuries needed to be distributed among the 100m sections of road, the number distributed to each section was a function of the product of each section’s Star Rating Score and exposure (in the case of vehicle occupants, exposure is measured as the annual average daily traffic). Hence, it is feasible that a road with a 1-star rating (indicating high risk) can still experience very few deaths if its traffic volume is low, and vice versa.
6.1.2 Selecting countermeasures
For each 100m section of road, a series of countermeasures that could be feasibly implemented were identified. This was achieved by considering each countermeasure’s ability to reduce risk (using a series of ‘triggers’) and ‘hierarchy’ rules. The following are examples of triggers: A section of road that has a poor pedestrian Star Rating Score and high pedestrian activity would ‘trigger’ installation of a pedestrian refuge, pedestrian crossing or signalised pedestrian crossing. A section of road with poor delineation and a high vehicle occupant Star Rating Score would ‘trigger’ delineation improvements. ‘Hierarchy’ rules were used to ensure that more comprehensive countermeasures ‘override’ less comprehensive countermeasures. For example: If a grade separated pedestrian facility was feasible, then it took precedent over other pedestrian measures (such as a pedestrian refuge or signalised crossing). If a horizontal realignment was feasible, then redundant countermeasures were not considered (for example, curve delineation and shoulder widening). If a segregated motorcycle lane was feasible, then other motorcycle lanes (such as an on-road motorcycle lane) were removed from the plan.
6.1.3 Economic analysis
Each countermeasure option identified was then subject to a BCR (Benefit-Cost Ratio) analysis. Countermeasures that failed to achieve a BCR that met a prescribed threshold for a given 100m segment were excluded from the analysis. The benefit of a countermeasure was determined by calculating the net present value of deaths and serious injuries that would be avoided over twenty years if the countermeasure was installed (a discount rate of 12% was used). The reduction in deaths and serious injuries was determined by replacing the Star Rating Score used in the original estimate (made in the process of distributing deaths among 100 meter sections of road) with a new, lower Star Rating Score. The resultant reductions were then reduced by 0.6, to account for the fact that the benefit of a package of countermeasures is typically less than the sum of their individual benefits. The cost of a countermeasure was determined by calculating the net present cost of constructing and replacing it (based on its service life) over 20 years.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 56 6.2 Investment plan
The basic output of the RAP method is the Safer Roads Investment Plan. The SRIP presents all the countermeasures that proved to be able to provide the greater safety capacity and maximize the benefit over spent cost of the planned investments. The cost of each countermeasure is compared to the value of life and serious injuries that could be saved. The Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated for each countermeasure proposed. It has to be mentioned that the countermeasures listed are indicative and will need to be assessed and sense-checked with local engineers. Note that not all measures will be relevant to all Egypt situations. Where, for example, a measure may be considered inappropriate, alternatives may be found – for example if roadside barriers are not well suited to a location, then road hazard clearance should be considered. Data are held in iRAP’s ViDA software. In circumstances where the printed output differs from that held in ViDA, the material held within the software takes precedence. The printed report provides the results of the survey and also gives an entry-level guide to the software and the analysis possibilities that are available within it. Any changes in the modelling assumptions, coding corrections, minor model changes or differences in the presentation of results (such as rounding) will always be reflected in results held in the ViDA software.
Table 17 The Safer Roads Investment Plan (unrounded data) Currency: EGP Total FSIs Saved Total PV of Safety Estimated Cost Cost per FSI saved Program BCR Benefits 37.030 7.130.347.379 1.809.315.598 48.855 4
Countermeasure Lenght/ FSIs PV Estimated Cost BCR Sites saved of Cost per safety FSI saved benefit Additional lane (2+1 road with barrier) 493 km 8380 1.614.846.828 287.002.520 34.219 6 Roadside barriers – passenger side 1108.2 km 5280 1.017.884.373 318.245.340 60.196 3 Roadside barriers – driver side 1081.9 km 5110 985.622.952 310.692.680 60.691 3 Central median barrier (no duplication) 61.1 km 2840 546.820.629 120.327.770 42.367 5 Footpath provision passenger side (adjc. to road) 360 km 2550 491.494.568 86.974.330 34.071 6 Improve delineation 687.4 km 2110 407.476.982 178.601.200 84.390 2 Shoulder rumble strips 1402 km 1960 379.188.001 80.600.270 40.925 5 Shoulder sealing passenger side (>1m) 616 km 1320 254.681.829 47.814.300 36.147 5 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 3-leg) 90 sites 1010 195.055.369 6.046.620 5.968 32 Delineation and signing (intersection) 98 sites 950 184.710.241 47.725.890 49.747 4 Traffic calming 53.9 km 840 162.691.339 2.869.400 3.396 57 Shoulder sealing driver side (>1m) 416.5 km 820 159.686.589 81.911.250 98.760 2 Duplication with median barrier 2.8 km 720 139.109.943 109.865.450 152.058 1 Skid Resistance (paved road) 10.1 km 490 94.455.144 22.965.540 46.812 4 Refuge Island 305 sites 350 68.918.446 4.303.170 12.022 16 Median crossing upgrade 194 sites 310 61.249.987 7.745.020 24.346 8
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 57
Parking improvements 30.7 km 280 54.441.629 1.545.080 5.464 35 Roundabout 5 sites 230 45.970.871 8.759.250 36.685 5 Rail crossing upgrade 6 sites 160 31.266.842 1.208.000 7.439 26 Sight distance (obstruction removal) 0.5 km 160 32.543.148 169.860 1.005 192 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 4-leg) 5 sites 150 30.622.305 532.270 3.347 58 Footpath provision driver side (adjacent to road) 35.5 km 130 25.788.892 8.576.630 64.031 3 Street lighting (intersection) 7 sites 120 23.840.752 15.590.400 125.906 2 Street lighting (mid-block) 2.1 km 110 21.506.959 18.655.580 167.008 1 Improve curve deliniation 9 km 97 18.753.938 1.501.750 15.417 12 Side road unsignalised pedestrian crossing 16 sites 77 14.953.574 2.342.050 30.155 6 Clear roadside hazards – passenger side 62.4 km 57 11.073.271 9.904.110 172.206 1 Clear roadside hazards – driver side 58 km 55 10.677.377 9.205.740 165.998 1 Pave road surface 1 km 53 10.204.923 4.225.130 79.715 2 Signalise intersection (3-leg) 1 sites 50 9.660.519 5.435.870 108.337 2 Pedestrian fencing 1.8 km 46 8.950.966 2.876.470 61.873 3 Restrict/combine direct access points 7 km 20 3.951.382 1.117.830 54.468 4 Centreline rumble strip / flexi post 0.8 km 16 3.177.564 45.990 2.787 69 Central median barrier (1+1) 0.3 km 14 2.705.045 893.820 63.619 3 Shoulder sealing passenger side (<1m) 44.7 km 11 2.175.273 1.203.250 106.500 2 Sideslope improvement – passenger side 8.9 km 7 1.369.948 424.390 59.645 3 School zone warning – flashing beacon 4 sites 4 856.133 664.380 149.413 1 Sideslope improvement – driver side 5.1 km 3 744.829 243.190 62.864 3 Bicycle lane (off road) 1.1 km 2 481.789 355.420 142.036 1 Upgrade pedestrian facility quality 1 sites 2 488.899 9.660 3.805 51 Road surface rehabilitation 0.6 km 1 247.331 138.520 107.836 2 37030 7.130.347.379 1.809.315.598 48.855 4
Deaths and serious Deaths and serious Deaths and serious injuries Deaths (per year) injuries (per year) injuries (20 years)
Without Countermeasures 317 3,483* 69,665
After Countermeasures 148* 1,632* 32,635
Prevented 168* 1,852* 37,030
FSI reduction 53 %
Program BCR 4,0
Cost per deth and serious injuries 48,855 prevented
*totals approximate and based on unrounded data
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 58
Local US $
FSI crash costs per year (without) 1,795m 251m
FSI crash cost savings per year (after) 954m 133m
According to the investment plan, the total cost of the engineering measures is 1,809m EGP, while the present value of safety benefits amounts to 7,130m EGP. If the SRIP is implemented, the estimated number of FSI saved will be 37,030 in the next 20 years, i.e. 48,855 EGP per FSI saved. The programme BCR is 4. The top five most efficient and cost-effective measures that could help save the greatest number of lives include the following identified solutions: Improved delineation, Roadside barriers – driver side, Roadside barriers – passenger side, Protected turn lanes, Footpath provision passenger side (adjc. to road). The Star Rating results after adopting all the proposed countermeasures are presented in the next figures.
Table 18 Star Rating after implementing the SRIP
Vehicle Occupant Motorcycle Pedestrian Bicycle Star Ratings Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent (km) (km) (km) (km) 5 Stars 539,3 16% 0.0 0% 25,1 1% 0.0 0.% 4 Stars 1665,2 51% 0.0 0% 305,9 9% 3,1 0.% 3 Stars 1047,5 32% 0.0 0% 110 3% 91 3% 2 Stars 17 1% 0.0 0% 54,1 2% 358 11% 1 Star 2,3 0% 0.0 0% 22,3 1% 174,4 5% Not applicable* 1.6 0% 3272.9 100% 2755.5 84% 2642.4 81% Totals 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100% 3272.9 100%
It is clear that the SRIP would improve the Egypt road network safety significantly. For vehicle occupants, the number of 1-Star high-risk roads would decrease to a great extent, whereas the 5-Star roads would be present in 16% of the network. Practically all road network will be minimum 3-star. There are improvements in the bicycles and pedestrians’ safety as well. However, the effect of the SRIP on these user groups is relatively lower than on vehicle occupants.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 59 Figure 36 Star Rating map for vehicle occupants after implementing the SRIP
Figure 37 Star Rating map for pedestrians after implementing the SRIP
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 60 Figure 38 Star Rating map for cyclists after implementing the SRIP
6.3 Implementation of Countermeasures
If the recommended countermeasures have been implemented, the predicted casualty reduction map with the reduced FSI over 20 years will be as follows: Figure 39 Predicted casualty reduction map
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 61 This map illustrates the numbers of fatalities and serious injuries that could be prevented per kilometre, per year, if the countermeasures identified in the Safer Roads Investment Plan (SRIP) were implemented. The SRIP contains extensive planning and engineering information such as road attribute records, countermeasure proposals and economic assessments for 100 meter sections of road network. They are supported by the online software which makes this information highly accessible. Each countermeasure proposed in a SRIP is backed by strong evidence. If implemented, it will prevent deaths and serious injuries in a cost-effective way. Nevertheless, in interpreting the results of this report, it is important to recognize that iRAP method is designed to provide a network-level assessment of risk and cost-effective countermeasures. As such, a SRIP should be considered just the first step in building a safe road. For this reason, implementation of the proposals in subsequent steps of this project will be subject to: Local examination of proposed countermeasure options. Preliminary and detailed design for trunk roads, Star Ratings of the designs, detailed costing, final economic evaluation. Identification of ‘rural road’ priorities, preliminary design, costing and economic analysis of countermeasures. This will be accompanied by preliminary project design, scope and cost estimates for the capacity building and road safety education campaigns.
6.3.1 Tailoring a SRIP for a specific section of road
Having identified a priority location or a section of road, it is possible to further tailor the countermeasure plan to suit specific circumstances. This is especially useful if budget constraints have changed. Cost- effectiveness may be used to generate a list of priority countermeasures within a limited budget. The initial SRIP involved production of list of all countermeasures that could feasibly be built on the road, sorted in order of descending BCR. The countermeasure download file, available online, was used to generate this list.
6.4 Detailed SRIP Results
6.4.1 Road 21 (Cairo – Alexandria), the agricultural route
The table below shows the tailored SRIP for the section 21, presented in chapter 5.22, with the priority top 10 countermeasures for this section, in terms of saved FSIs. The most efficient and cost-effective proposed countermeasure is the provision of passenger footpath (adjacent to road) and roadside barriers for the passenger and driver’s side.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 62 Table 19 The SRIP of the road 21 Cairo - Alexandria
Total FSIs Saved Total PV of Safety Estimated Cost Cost per FSI saved Program BCR Benefits 13,230 2,549,052,481 478,868,490 36,170 5
Countermeasure Lenght/ FSIs PV Estimated Cost BCR Sites saved of Cost per safety FSI saved benefit Footpath provision passenger side (adjc. to road) 260,9 km 2050 395,085,681 63,032,230 30,717 6 Roadside barriers – driver side 240,1 km 2010 387,182,037 68,950,280 34,287 6 Roadside barriers – passenger side 276,4 km 1950 376,729,836 79,374,670 40,566 5 Central median barrier (no duplication) 18,9 km 1270 245,474,554 37,220,860 29,194 7 Improve delineation 280,4 km 1220 236,683,076 86,300,200 70,202 3 Shoulder sealing passenger side (>1m) 298 km 920 177,206,256 23,130,940 25,132 8 Delineation and signing (intersection) 70 sites 720 139,695,801 35,043,480 48,298 4 Traffic calming 44,6 km 660 128,732,819 2,374,310 3,551 54 Shoulder sealing driver side (>1m) 248,9 km 570 110,021,409 48,950,080 85,661 2 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 3-leg) 28 sites 500 97,763,673 1,881,170 11,958 52
Figure 40 Example of the location with the proposed countermeasure (footpath provision)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 63 Figure 41 Example of the location with the proposed countermeasure (safety barrier, driver side)
Figure 42 Example of the location with the proposed countermeasure (safety barrier, passenger side)
Figure 43 Example of the location with the proposed countermeasure (safety barrier, passenger side)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 64 Table 20 Star Rating after implementing the SRIP, road 21
Vehicle Occupant Pedestrian Bicycle Star Ratings Length Percent Length Percent Length Percent (km) (km) (km) 5 Stars 135.9 37% 0.6 0% 0.0 0.% 4 Stars 141.4 39% 198.1 54% 0,0 0.% 3 Stars 79.5 22% 64.2 18% 13,1 4% 2 Stars 7.7 2% 31.5 9% 173,8 48% 1 Star 0,4 0% 5.5 2% 143 39% Not applicable* 0,2 0% 65.2 18% 35,2 10% Totals 365,1 100% 365,1 100% 365,1 100%
Figure 44 Star Rating map for vehicle occupants after implementing the SRIP, road 21
It is clear that the SRIP would improve the Egypt road network safety significantly. For vehicle occupants, the number of 1 and 2 Star high-risk roads would decrease significantly, whereas the 5-Star roads would be present in 37% of the network. Practically all the road network will be minimum 3-star. There are improvements in the bicycles and pedestrians’ safety, too. However, the effect of the SRIP on these user groups is relatively lower than it is on the vehicle occupant user group.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 65 Figure 45 Predicted casualty reduction map for road 21
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 66 7 Safer road system
Although the plans summarized in the previous section identify opportunities to significantly reduce deaths and serious injuries, in order to ensure that these benefits are realized, and that road safety is truly addressed and tackled, efforts that go beyond engineering improvements alone will be necessary. Egypt is one of many regions in which traffic education and enforcement (seat belts, helmets, drink-driving, mobile phone use, etc) is still developing. As a result, the benefit of some infrastructure improvements may be compromised because they are not used as they are intended. For example, during the project it was noted that there were many unsafe human behaviours, such as children playing on the roads, pedestrians not using crossing facilities, vehicles parking at inappropriate locations, etc. Even some road infrastructure was destroyed or stolen, which could pose a potential safety hazard. In order to achieve a safer road system, in terms of safer roads and mobility, all the stakeholders from the project must ensure that, after the iRAP assessment of the existing infrastructure has been completed, the proposed engineering countermeasure must be implemented in order to separate road users and thus protect the vulnerable road users from road crashes. Figure 46 Pedestrians not using the crossing facilities
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 67 Figure 47 An overloaded pickup truck
Figure 48 Damaged barriers
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 68 Figure 49 The median gap not sufficient for a large truck making a U turn
Figure 50 A vehicle running in a wrong direction
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 69 8 Future action
8.1 Maintenance, crash reduction measures and upgrading
Countermeasures in the SRIP can often be implemented as part of one or more existing programmes targeting maintenance, crash reduction or large-scale upgrading. Elements in the SRIP in Table 17 in a maintenance budget might include such features as delineation, resurfacing or shoulder sealing, all of which are items that are modestly priced and yet can have a substantial influence on crash reduction. Crash studies often highlight collisions at particular locations, types of locations or those involving particular road users. As such, a programme of countermeasures prompted by the SRIP and informed by complementary local information might include implementing protected turns at intersections, providing refuge islands or upgrading an intersection by installing traffic signals. Upgrading or road rehabilitation may include creating more road space by adding a lane, installing barriers to enhance crash protection or providing grade separation. These are large-scale investments often contemplated over longer time scales and as part of bigger programmes.
Figure 51 Maintenance or large-scale upgrading? – budgets to be found (Photo:GARBLT)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 70 8.1 Mass action
Mass action programmes aim to rectify problems of a particular type on an area wide basis by applying a proven low cost remedy to locations or routes having common accident factor 4 . Typically the countermeasures included in a mass action programme would be something easy to conduct, such as line marking, signs, shoulder sealing, surface improvements and cross traffic turn lanes at intersections. The SRIPs in this report provides a basis for developing a mass action programme. Analysis in Table 17 showed that street lighting improvements at 7 intersections was identified (helping to prevent 120 deaths and serious injuries over 20 years at a cost of about EGP 15.6m and with a BCR of 2). Two such locations of street lighting are illustrated in the ViDA screenshot below (Figure 53) as an example. Delineation and signing at intersections is another popular measure. 98 sites have been identified where there would be a saving of 950 fatal and serious casualties at a cost of about EGP 48m and a BCR of 4. Similarly, 62.4km is recommended for a passenger side roadside hazard clearance, saving more than 50 fatal and serious injuries over 20 years and at a cost of around EGP 10m. The benefit cost ratio shows that the measure pays for itself. Mass action programme opportunities may be used in improving curve delineation, shoulder rumble strips, protected turns, roadside hazard reduction or pedestrian refuges.
Figure 52 Protection or removal of roadside objects may form a mass action plan (Photo: GARBLT)
4 Queensland Main Roads 2002
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 71 Figure 53 ViDA screenshot of potential street-lighting implementation opportunity, delineation and signing at intersections and potential passenger side hazard removal clearance
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 72 8.1 Perform a demonstration project
It is unlikely even the best-funded road authority would be able to implement a full Safer Roads Investment Plan. Some authorities choose to set a higher threshold BCR and then implement selectively; others choose to select only a small part of the network where there will be greatest casualty savings and direct resources at that. Figure 39 and Figures 44-45 show potential for action on the Cairo-Alexandria Agricultural Road. The associated images show a need, in particular to reinforce the urban spread into the carriageway and provide for vulnerable road users. The figures below show where, in other countries, simple measures have been used to demarcate the carriageway and provide for different road users. Examples such as these could be used on the Cairo-Alexandria route. The Cairo-Alexandria route has the twin advantages of offering good potential for casualty reduction and being close to centre of population. The latter point is important because it is important to select such demonstration projects in places where they will be readily visible to those with influence who may create opportunities for them to be copied elsewhere. Figure 54 Before and after – use of a raised island to distinguish roadside from carriageway (Photos Figures 54-56: John Barrell)
Figure 55 Before and after -- pedestrian crossing to raised roadside separation enclosing parking
Figure 56 Before and after – illustration of pedestrian (red) and cycling (green) provision
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 73 8.2 Engagement with the data and the Egypt road safety community
This iRAP survey provides several opportunities for GARBLT. It is recommended in particular:
that GARBLT engineers skilled in the use of the iRAP ViDA package continue to skill up other GARBLT staff in its use. In the absence of good alternative information, the inventory and risk data base is hugely powerful
that funds are sought for continued implementation support in Egypt over the coming year and potentially beyond. This would take the form of of missions from iRAP-nominated personnel familiar with ViDA data and able to provide support work for tender documents for road upgrading
that there is a larger-scale workshop that includes GARBLT maintenance and design engineers as well as local consultant engineers. This will facilitate priority-setting based on the EuroRAP and a wider shared understanding of what is possible
that the iRAP study in Egypt is the focus of a conference in Egypt or presentations beyond Egypt by GARBLT staff, thereby increasing their ownership and dissemination of the work
that a database is developed of the wider road safety and engineering community in Egypt who may wish to receive copies of the report and indeed have access to the data
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 74 9 Conclusions
This technical report describes the road assessment project in Egypt and includes details on data collection, methodology used and a summary of results in a form of Star Ratings, showing the level of risk on the road network. It also offers Safer Roads Investment Plans which have enormous potential to reduce road deaths and injuries on the inspected roads. iRAP results are available to the project stakeholders who can learn about precise locations where countermeasures should be considered for implementation. The star rating showed that no road was rated as 5-star for vehicle occupants. Only 6% of the roads scored 4 stars for the car occupant safety. 40% of the network was awarded 3 stars, while 54% of the roads scored only 1 star or 2 stars. The network was rated less well for motorcyclists, with only 23% achieving a 3-star rating. Road sections for other vulnerable road users rated even worse. Only 2% of the network achieved a 3-star or better rating for pedestrians and 1% for bicyclists. 5% of the network scored better than 1-star for pedestrians and 7% for bicyclists. Sources of deaths or serious injuries on the inspected network are likely to include: lack of run-off protection and hazardous objects close to the road inadequate intersection layout, control and marking lack of head-on protection lack of pedestrian facilities Although the quality of Egypt’s roads is not inconsistent with other middle-income countries, more effort should be put into providing safer infrastructure for all road users. The most efficient and cost-effective countermeasures include improved delineation, roadside barriers on both driver and passenger side, protected turn lanes, footpath provision adjacent to road etc. The results showed that the current state of roads needs improvements in order to achieve the desired level of safety, and to climb higher in the international rating of safety level on roads. The outputs of this work give support to the decision-makers as well as engineers in the process of identifying the areas of high risk, and help them decide how to address these locations. The methodology of measuring the relative risk of various types of accidents based on coded attributes and collected data about the traffic flow proved to be effective in many countries of the world in the framework of the RAP programme. The Safer Roads Investment Plan is not a “bill of works” that may used directly intender documents. It and the assumptions used in the model must be carefully assessed by local engineers and others who have contributed to the work or who have a legitimate interest in the roads. In particular, they must consider such features as the value of life and injury used in the work, the data used in estimating injury savings, traffic volumes, countermeasure costs and operating speeds on the network. A programme budgeted at 1,809m EGP could save an estimated 37,000 fatal and serious injuries over 20 years, a reduction of around half of all casualties. The programme BCR would be 4, with many countermeasures of course providing a much higher rate of return than this. Future action on in Egypt could:
include selective implementation of the SRIP based on targets of improving maintenance, using complementary crash studies, network upgrading be driven by a mass action philosophy designed to counter particular crash types at common locations or for particular road users include a demonstration project on the Cairo-Alexandria Agricultural Road make further use of the data and sharing of it with the wider road safety community in Egypt
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 75
10 Appendix 1: Countermeasure costs (rounded)
Countermeasure Carriageway UpgradeCost Countermeasure Unit of Cost Service Life ID Code (EGP)
1 Improve delineation Individual lane km 5 54,000
2 Bicycle lane (on-road) Individual per km 20 344,000
3 Bicycle lane (off-road) Individual per km 20 646,000
4 Motorcycle lane (painted logos only on-road) Individual per km 5 42,000
5 Motorcycle lane (construct on-road) Individual per km 20 499,000
6 Motorcycle lane (segregated) Individual per km 20 1,276,000
7 Horizontal realignment Individual lane km 20 40,266,000
8 Improve curve delineation Individual per carriageway km 5 81,000 9 Lane widening (up to 0.5m) Individual lane km 10 403,000
10 Lane widening (>0.5m) Individual lane km 10 47,000
11 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 3 leg) Multi intersection 10 51,000
12 Protected turn lane (unsignalised 4 leg) Multi intersection 10 81,000
13 Delineation and signing (intersection) Multi intersection 5 161,000
14 Protected turn provision at existing signalised site (3-leg) Multi intersection 10 604,000
15 Protected turn provision at existing signalised site (4-leg) Multi intersection 10 1,007,000
16 Signalise intersection (3-leg) Multi intersection 20 3,624,000
17 Signalise intersection (4-leg) Multi intersection 20 3,624,000 18 Grade separation Multi intersection 50 90,598,000
19 Rail crossing upgrade Multi intersection 20 161,000
20 Roundabout Multi intersection 20 1,251,000
21 Central hatching Multi per km 10 193,000
iRAP Yem en Technical Report, 2014 | 76
Countermeasure Carriageway UpgradeCost Countermeasure Unit of Cost Service Life ID Code (EGP)
22 Rumble strip / flexi-post Multi per km 10 43,000 23 Central turning lane full length Multi per km 10 1,167,000 24 Central median barrier (no duplication) Multi per km 10 2,979,000 Undivided 25 Duplication with median barrier per carriageway km 20 39,238,000 Only Undivided 26 Duplicate - <1m median per carriageway km 20 39,238,000 Only Undivided 27 Duplicate - 1-5 m median per carriageway km 20 4,202,000 Only Undivided 28 Duplicate - 5-10m median per carriageway km 20 4,622,000 Only Undivided 29 Duplicate - 10-20m median per carriageway km 20 5,085,000 Only Undivided 30 Duplicate - >20m median per carriageway km 20 5,593,000 Only 31 Service Road Individual per km 20 776,000 32 Additional lane (2 + 1 road) Individual per km 20 582,000 Undivided 33 Implement one way network per carriageway km 20 132,000 Only 34 Upgrade pedestrian facility quality Individual unit 10 7,000 35 Refuge Island Multi unit 10 11,000 36 Unsignalised crossing Multi unit 10 11,000 37 Signalised crossing Multi unit 20 18,000 38 Grade separated pedestrian facility Multi unit 50 582,000 40 Road surface rehabilitation Individual lane km 10 58,000 41 Clear roadside hazards - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 159,000 42 Clear roadside hazards - driver side Individual per linear km 20 159,000 43 Sideslope improvement - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 48,000 44 Sideslope improvement - driver side Individual per linear km 20 48,000 45 Roadside barriers - passenger side Individual per linear km 20 287,000 46 Roadside barriers - driver side Individual per linear km 20 287,000
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 77
Countermeasure Carriageway UpgradeCost Countermeasure Unit of Cost Service Life ID Code (EGP)
47 Shoulder sealing passenger side (<1m) Individual per linear km 20 27,000 48 Shoulder sealing passenger side (>1m) Individual per linear km 20 78,000 52 Restrict/combine direct access points Individual per km 10 242,000 54 Footpath provision passenger side (adjacent to road) Individual per km 20 242,000 55 Footpath provision passenger side (>3m from road) Individual per km 20 242,000 56 Speed management reviews Individual per carriageway km 5 40,000 57 Traffic calming Individual per carriageway km 10 40,000 59 Vertical realignment (major) Individual lane km 20 3,720,000 60 Overtaking or additional lane Individual per linear km 20 4,295,000 61 Median Crossing Upgrade Multi intersection 10 30,000 62 Clear roadside hazards (bike lane) Individual per km 20 40,000 63 Sideslope improvement (bike lane) Individual per km 20 124,000 64 Roadside barriers (bike lane) Individual per km 20 1,311,000 65 Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 145,000 66 Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 334,000 67 Roadside barriers (seg MC lane) passenger side Individual per km 20 1,311,000 68 Speed management reviews (MC Lane) Individual per carriageway km 5 40,000 69 Central median barrier (MC lane) Multi per km 10 1,311,000 71 Skid Resistance (paved road) Individual lane km 10 742,000 72 Skid Resistance (unpaved road) Individual per carriageway km 10 315,000 73 Pave road surface Individual lane km 10 1,598,000 74 Street lighting (mid-block) Individual lane km 20 4,442,000 75 Street lighting (intersection) Individual intersection 20 2,227,000 76 Street lighting (ped crossing) Individual unit 20 554,000 77 Shoulder rumble strips Individual per carriageway km 10 435,000 78 Parking improvements Individual per carriageway km 20 50,000
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 78
Countermeasure Carriageway UpgradeCost Countermeasure Unit of Cost Service Life ID Code (EGP)
79 Sight distance (obstruction removal) Individual per carriageway km 20 340,000 80 Pedestrian fencing Individual per carriageway km 20 1,598,000 81 Side road grade separated pedestrian facility Individual intersection 20 6,040,000 152 Side road signalised pedestrian crossing Individual unit 20 190,000 153 Side road unsignalised pedestrian crossing Individual intersection 10 111,000 163 Footpath provision passenger side (with barrier) Individual per km 20 2,979,000 164 Footpath provision passenger side (informal path >1m) Individual per km 10 197,000 178 Footpath provision driver side (informal path >1m) Individual per km 10 279,000 177 Footpath provision driver side (with barrier) Individual per km 20 2,979,000 174 Footpath provision driver side (>3m from road) Individual per km 20 242,000 173 Footpath provision driver side (adjacent to road) Individual per km 20 242,000 171 Shoulder sealing driver side (<1m) Individual per linear km 20 428,000 172 Shoulder sealing driver side (>1m) Individual per linear km 20 78,000 182 Realignment (sight distance improvement) Individual lane km 20 127,013,000 Undivided 186 Central median barrier (1+1) per km 20 29,794,000 Only 187 Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane) driver side Individual per km 20 145,000 188 Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane) driver side Individual per km 20 124,000 189 Roadside barriers (seg MC lane) driver side Individual per km 20 1,311,000 Undivided 190 Wide centreline per linear km 20 147,000 Only 191 School zone warning - signs and markings Individual lane km 5 101,000 192 School zone warning - flashing beacon Individual unit 20 166,000 193 School zone - crossing guard or supervisor Individual unit 1 201,000
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 79
11 Appendix 2: Traffic flows
Road Description AADT name
11 F01 (El Ain Sokhna – El Zafarana) 16836
11 F02 (El Zafarana – Ras Ghareb) 3466
11 11 F03 (Ras Ghareb – Hurghada) 3466 11 F04 (Hurghada – Safaga) 3466 11 R01 (Safaga – Hurghada) 3466 11 R02 (Hurghada - Ras Ghareb) 3466 11 R03 (Ras Ghareb - El Zafarana) 3466
Road Description AADT name
139 R01 (Aswan – Edfu) 2500
139 139 R02 (Edfu – Ad Dimuqrat) 2500 139 R03 (Ad Dimuqrat – Qena) 2500
Road Description AADT name 15 15 F01(Cairo – Al Ismailia desert 6828 road) 15 R01(Al Ismailia desert road – Cairo) 6828
Road Description AADT name 16 16 F01 (Cairo – Suez) 20258 16 R01 (Suez – Cairo) 20258
Road Description AADT name 17 17 F01 (Cairo – Bilbeis) 28820 17 R01 (Bilbeis – Cairo) 28820
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 80
Road Description AADT name 176 176 F01 (Cairo – El Ain Sokhna) 20000 176 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – Cairo) 20000
Road Description AADT name
21 F01 (Cairo – Tanta) 12588
21 21 F02 (Tanta – Alexandria) 35830 21 R01 (Tanta – Alexandria) 35830 21 R02 (Cairo – Tanta) 12588
Road Description Speed limit name ( km/h) 221 221 F01 (Cairo – El Faiyum) 20344 221 R01 (El Faiyum – Cairo) 20344
Road Description AADT name 244 244 F01 (Safaga – Qena) 4200 244 R01 (Qena – Safaga) 4200
Road Description AADT name 25_195 25_195 F01 1632 (Aswan – Ameda Temples jn.) 25_195 F02 1632 (Ameda Temples jn – Abu Simbel)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 81
Road Description AADT name
35 F01 (Cairo – Maghaghah) 6300
35 F02 (Maghaghah – Dayrout) 7866
35 35 F03 (Dayrout – Asyut) 7000 35 R01 (Asyut – Dayrout) 7000 35 R02 (Dayrout – Maghaghah 7866 35 R03 (Maghaghah - Cairo) 6300
Road Description AADT name 516 516 F01 (Cairo Ring road) 10241 516 R01 (Cairo Ring road) 10241
Road Description AADT name 517_11 517_11 F01 (Suez – El Ain Sokhna) 20258 517_11 R01 (El Ain Sokhna – Suez) 20258
Motorcycle flows were assumed to for less than 5% of traffic.
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 82
12 Appendix 3: Countermeasure examples
Road Safety Toolkit
Countermeasures identified in iRAP plans are described in more detail on the Road Safety Toolkit (http://toolkit.irap.org). The Toolkit provides free information on the causes and prevention of road crashes that cause death and injury. It builds on decades of road safety research, the Toolkit helps engineers, planners and policy makers develop safety plans for car occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians, bicyclists, heavy vehicle occupants and public transport users.
The Road Safety Toolkit is the result of collaboration between the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP), the Global Transport Knowledge Partnership (gTKP) and the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility. ARRB Group provided expert advice during the Toolkit's development. Examples of measures listed in Table 17 are see in Figures 58-67.
Figure 57 Screenshots from the Road Safety Toolkit
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 83
Figure 58 Provision for cyclists and pedestrians
Figure 59 Safety barriers
Figure 60 Improving road surface to prevent skidding
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 84
Figure 61 Improving delineation
Figure 62 Shoulder sealing
Figure 63 Countermeasures for sharp curves
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 85
Figure 64 Countermeasures for continuous sharp curves (before and after)
Figure 65 Countermeasures for dangerous roadside
Figure 66 Countermeasures for intersection
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 86
Figure 67 Countermeasures for head-on protection – hatching (before and after) (Photos – John Barrell)
iRAP Egypt Technical Report, 2014 | 87