International Road Assessment Programme dedicated to saving lives

iRAP Results 2009 About iRAP: Every year 1.3 million people are killed and more than 50 million people are injured or disabled in road crashes worldwide. Contents

4 Foreword The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a 6 Background not-for-profit organisation dedicated to saving lives through 6 A global epidemic safer roads. iRAP works in partnership with government and 6 The role of the road non-government organisations to: 6 Getting organised

8 Safer Roads • assess high-risk roads and develop affordable, high-return 8 Crashes that kill infrastructure investment programmes using a globally 9 Formal safer road infrastructure consistent methodology programmes 9 Network road safety • provide training, technology and support that will build management and sustain national, regional and local capability

10 Road Assessment Programme • track road safety performance so that funding agencies 10 iRAP in Serbia can assess the benefits of their investments. 11 Road network 12 Road inspections 13 Star Ratings 14 Serbia: Star Ratings maps

17 Serbia: Countermeasure Programme 18 Implementation 18 Speed 21 Number of deaths and serious injuries avoided

24 Serbia: Conclusions

25 Acknowledgements

3 Foreword

Miodrag Minic, AMSS Secretary General and President of the iRAP Serbia Steering Committee he Automobile and Motorcycle Association of Serbia, as the iRAP Serbia project leader, has been extremely T honoured and proud to have been able to carry out this important international road assessment programme in the Republic of Serbia, wherein, apart from our country, more than 50 other countries are participating worldwide. Though the project represented a real challenge for all the partners involved, each segment of it was successfully accom- plished. The results and ratings coming from this project are beyond expectations, but, nevertheless, they remind us that the Serbian roads are not completely safe, and that we have to put much more efforts to make them safe, for all the road users. This we can achieve by implementing the engineering counter-measures, recommended in the report, with which the last phase of the iRAP project in Serbia would have been com- pleted. In this way, Serbia would become the first country to have implemented the recommended engineering solutions. We also hope that this report will help with the creation of the national road safety strategy and road safety casualty reduc- , iRAP Chairman tion targets in Serbia. John Dawson The “Serbian model”, emerged from the iRAP Serbia project, will serve as the platform for the continuation of the inspection very year 1.3 million people are Following the success of the pilot inspection The results in this report include three options programmes on the rest of the road network in Serbia, and also killed and more than 50 million programmes, iRAP secured funding from the World for countermeasure programmes at three levels in many other countries where iRAP projects are to be imple- Epeople are injured or disabled in Bank Global Road Safety Facility to inspect roads and of investment: mented. road crashes worldwide. create countermeasure programmes in Argentina, 1. The low-level investment programme is estimated Road trauma is a serious and rapidly Peru and Serbia and to complete a pilot inspection in to cost 2.2 billon dinars with a benefit cost ratio Biljana Vuksanovic, worsening public health crisis. This Nigeria and a feasibility study in Kenya. (BCR) of 11, delivering 24.8 billon dinars in crisis affects developing countries The iRAP tools described in this report allow benefits over 20 years. A n estimated 4,200 lives Director, Department in particular, where nine out of 10 road deaths and assessment of road safety performance of roads in and serious injuries could be saved through the of Strategy, Design and injuries occur. Worldwide, road crashes are the leading the absence of reliable crash data. The iRAP results implementation of this programme. cause of death for young people aged 10 - 24 and a include: 2. The medium-level investment programme is Development global killer on the scale of malaria or tuberculosis. Up • ‘Star Rating’ maps showing the safety of roads for estimated to cost 4.3 billon dinars with a BCR of he Public Enterprise „Roads of Serbia“, as an enterprise to 3% of the world’s GDP is lost through crashes. In 2006, car occupants, bicyclists and pedestrians 8, delivering 32.9 billon dinars in benefits over 20 entrusted with the management of the state roads in the iRAP won the generous support of the FIA Foundation • a road inventory database with over 30 inspected years. An estimated 5,600 lives and serious injuries T Repbulic of Serbia, is very glad that such an important for an ambitious investment programme to develop attributes describing the inspected network could be saved through the implementation of this international project – the iRAP Serbia project, i.e. the road as- tools to help low and middle income countries find the • an estimate of the numbers being killed and programme. sessment programme - has been completed in our country. high social and economic returns possible through the seriously injured on each inspected road 3. The high-level investment programme is estimated The Public Enterprise „Roads of Serbia“ has given its full sup- provision of safer roads. The major Road Assessment • a recommended cost-effective, network-wide to cost 11.0 billon dinars with a BCR of 4, delivering port to the Automobile and Motorcycle Association of Serbia Programmes in developed countries (AusRAP, EuroRAP countermeasure programme for consideration by 44.9 billon dinars in benefits over 20 years. (AMSS), as the iRAP Serbia project leader, for the realization of and usRAP) worked in partnership with global road local stakeholders and funding bodies. An estimated 7,600 lives and serious injuries could this very important international project. safety research organisations and local experts to be saved through the implementation of this All the results and assessments on the state roads in the develop and test these tools. I am deeply grateful to AMSS, the Government of Serbia programme. Republic of Serbia are, on one hand, encouraging, as they and Public Enterprise Roads of Serbia for inviting iRAP These programmes each offer very high returns indicate the satisfying condition of the state roads, but, on the iRAP was invited to work in four pilot countries: South to inspect 3,000 km of roads across its network where and represent an opportunity for Serbia to other hand, they are binding, requiring additional activities Africa, Malaysia, Chile and Costa Rica. These countries many people are killed. I welcome the willingness improve significantly its road safety record. aimed at increasing the level of road safety on them. offered exposure to a variety of road safety scenarios of these organisations to share the results of these The recommendations in this report are for a first To this end, we expect in the forthcoming period to start from a high proportion of motorcyclists in Malaysia inspections in order that lessons learnt in Serbia can be programme of basic safety improvements such as implementing the recommended engineering solutions, in or- to single carriageway roads with high speed limits in used across the region and the rest of the world. sealing, provision of signalised crossings for der to fully complete the last stage of this international project. South Africa. pedestrians, provision of , We also expect that the results and ratings obtained in this improvements and roundabouts. international project will contribute to creating the national This new methodology offers ‘vaccines for roads’ road safety strategy and setting out national KSI reduction – simple, affordable, high-return countermeasures targets on the state roads in the Republic of Serbia. that will prevent tens of thousands of lives and serious injuries over the next 20 years.

4 5 Background

By investing in life-saving features like sealed shoulders, footpaths, safety barriers and traffic

they are not exposed to high-speed traffic.  “Simple, A global epidemic affordable Deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes are a major In leading developed countries where great progress improvements to and growing public health epidemic. has already been made on driver behaviour and road infrastructure signals, high-risk can dramatically Each year 1.3 million people die in road crashes and vehicle safety, national safety strategies show investment reduce crash risk the number of seriously injured could be as high as in safer infrastructure is expected to deliver twice the and severity 50 million. Road crashes are now the leading cause of casualty saving provided by investment in either death for children and young people aged between behaviour or vehicles. 10 and 24. There are still many countries in which fundamental roads can be made The burden of road crashes is comparable with road-safety education and enforcement (seat belts, malaria and tuberculosis, and costs 1-3% of the helmets, drink-driving and general adherence to world’s GDP.1 traffic law) is not in place. In these countries basic Almost nine out of ten road deaths and serious injuries infrastructure, such as clear signs and road delineation occur in developing countries. Whereas road deaths are (or markings), is essential if road users are to know what more forgiving – they expected to fall in high-income countries, they are likely they are expected to do and if traffic law is to be to increase by more than 80% in the rest of the world.1 effectively enforced. In developing countries it is the poor that are most vulnerable. Pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcyclists Getting organised and those using informal public transport are many times What can give us hope is that other health epidemics, can be made safe. more likely than car occupants to be harmed that seemed impossible to fix, have been eliminated. on the roads. As recently as 1967, some 10-15 million cases of smallpox claimed two million lives every year, with The role of the road many survivors left disfigured or blind. In 1967, Most crashes are caused by human error. For this reason, the World Health Organization launched a mass road safety initiatives have traditionally focused on ‘fixing’ vaccination programme that was later followed by the driver in order to prevent crashes. Approaches Operation Smallpox Zero – a programme with a vision typically involve education, testing and enforcement. to eliminate the disease altogether. The vision zero However, to ‘err is human’; psychology tells us that was brought to fruition when the last case of smallpox people will always make mistakes. was reported in Somalia in 1977. The programme More recently, engineers have focused on was described as a triumph of management, mediating the outcome of a crash by designing safe not of medicine. vehicles and safe roads. It is possible to protect the In the same way, we know what can be done to road user in the event of a crash by designing vehicles prevent road deaths. However, in order to combat this and roads to work together to ensure crash energies public health epidemic we must ensure that we create do not overwhelm the human. For vulnerable road a sustainable and structured approach to aim for vision users the road design must work even harder to ensure zero – we must get organised to make roads safe.

6 1 Make Roads Safe, Commission for Global Road Safety. 7 Safer Roads

afe roads are those designed to reduce the likelihood of crashes occurring and be forgiving of those that do occur. SRoads designed to reduce crash likelihood show all road users where they should be and how to use the road safely. Clear road layouts not only explain where road users are expected to be, but they also take into account the road user’s ability to process information and make decisions. An inexpensive, simple pedestrian refuge island, not only shows where to cross but makes safe crossing much easier – the pedestrian has to check only one stream of oncoming traffic at a time.T he refuge also calms drivers’ speed and restricts overtaking at the crossing point. Forgiving roads are designed to protect road users in the event of a crash. The design of the road must recognise that crashes can occur and ensure that fatalities and injuries are minimised by protecting road users from hazards. Engineering features, such as safety barriers can be used to separate fast moving traffic from people and cushion crashes when they happen. Crashes are less likely to occur on self explaining roads and injuries are less severe on forgiving roads. Many similar examples of road improvements that help users understand the road protect from injury are shown in the iRAP Road Safety Toolkit (www.irap.org/toolkit).

Crashes that kill Formal safer road infrastructure programmes

Vulnerable road users Car occupants The casualty reduction strategy for any country at any economic returns in a national, regional or local Pedestrians are most vulnerable when they must cross For car occupants, fatal and serious crashes fall into stage of its road safety development needs to define project pool. busy roads without crossing facilities, and where they three main categories: the contribution that simple, affordable infrastructure Affordable road infrastructure improvements have have to mix with motorised traffic as they move along 1. Run-off crashes – typically a single vehicle leaves improvements can make. Footpaths, paint and the potential to cut road casualties on a scale a road because separate facilities are not provided. the carriageway and crashes into a fixed object fencing save lives. significant at the national level in the short, medium In developing countries motorcyclists and moped such as a tree or lighting column. Designing, building, financing, procuring and and long term. This is only possible if whole routes and riders can account for a high percentage of road 2. Junction crashes – the most serious crashes occur evaluating a motorway scheme is possible nearly networks, on which large numbers of deaths and deaths; in some Asian countries over 70% of road at T-junctions or crossroads where side impacts everywhere in the world. But projects that upgrade serious injuries are concentrated, are targeted deaths are motorcyclists. occur at high speeds. the safety of an entire route or network are rare, even systematically with the application of effective 3. Head-on crashes – vehicles travelling in opposing though they would often offer the most competitive countermeasures. Engineering countermeasures that work to reduce the directions have high-energy collisions. likelihood of a serious or fatal crash for vulnerable road users include: Engineering countermeasures that work to reduce • exclusion of traffic from areas where there is high the likelihood of a serious or fatal crash for vehicle Network safety management pedestrian activity occupants include: In order to effectively manage the safety of an existing road network, three basic activities need to be established: • slowing of traffic (traffic calming) in areas where • clearing roadsides of fixed objects (such as trees, there is high pedestrian activity lighting columns, road signs), replacing fixed objects with passively safe alternatives (e.g. • paths for pedestrians and bicyclists so they do not Reliable crash data should Road authorities must As safety treatments are deformable signposts and lighting columns), or mix with motorised traffic be collected. Police and have information about used, the outcomes protecting the road user with crash barriers • crossing facilities that follow crossing demand and 1 statisticians must work 2 the level of safety and 3 must be measured, • limiting the number of minor accesses to main show where pedestrians are expected to cross and together to ensure that serious traffic flow on their network. analysed and recorded so that roads, providing turning pockets, and replacing reduce the complexity of crossing the road crashes are recorded They must have an under- lessons can be learnt about cross roads and T-junctions with roundabouts and accurately – according to standing of how road features the impact of different • provision of separate motorcycle lanes or facilities. grade separated junctions internationally accepted on their network contribute to schemes. • separating opposing traffic travelling at high- protocols and definitions. risk and the potential for a The evidence base should speeds with a safety barrier or wide median. Risk Mapping can be serious or fatal crash. Star direct future action, ensuring produced using these data Rating inspections document that the most efficient in order to show where this road attribute information life-saving measures are individuals and communities and more detailed road safety implemented. face high levels of risk. audits can be used to identify specific sites and problems.

Effective safety management should involve infrastructure improvements at targeted locations throughout the road network and should not focus on just a few black spots that might have high short-term crash experience.

8 2 For more information on countermeasures to reduce risk for vulnerable road users and car occupants, visit the iRAP Road Safety Toolkit, www.irap.org/toolkit 9 Road Assessment Programme

A typical iRAP project Road network ROAD SAFETY FACT BOX: SERBIA develops in a number of One of the early tasks of the Steering Committee was Population: 7.5 million stages, as illustrated below. to identify the network of roads to be inspected and iRAP TOTAL ROAD NETWORK: 40,845 km, 68% paved assessed. The network selected included roads where: Roads assessed by iRAP: 2,945km • high traffic volumes are present FATALITIES (2007): 962 • large numbers of people are likely to be killed Death rate per 100,000 population: 12.9 Define the road network where in Serbia or seriously injured Cost to economy: 2% of GDP fatal and serious injuries are • a range of different road conditions are evident. Road safety target: No official numerical target likely to be concentrated iRAP Serbia was led by a Steering Committee with representatives of Several roads selected were of strategic importance iRAP, Automobile and Motorcycle Association of Serbia (AMSS), to the economy, tourism and international travel. Road deaths by road user type Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Interior, Public Enterprise Roads of The roads included in the network, and their lengths, Serbia, World Bank and Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, are listed in Table 1. 59% Belgrade University (see Figure 1). Car Occupants

Inspect the roads and map the Fig 1 Members of the iRAP Serbia Steering Committee Table 1 iRAP network in Serbia safety quality of the road network Surveyed Length Surveyed Length Road Road (km) (km) M1 (E70) 103.9 M23 25.5 M1 (E75) 677.2 M24 62.8 Estimate Estimate M1.12 (E80) 94.8 M25 (E771) 181.3 average cost of average value M1.17 (E660) 58.5 M25.1 164 schemes of savings M1.9 (E70) 101.5 M4 36.1 M17-1 (E662) 10.5 M5 (E761) 184.8 M18 70.2 M5 (E763) 40.1 M19 81.9 M7 108.3 Appraise investment options and M21 66.1 M7.1 88.2 recommend general shape of a M21 (E763) 84.9 M8 92.3 high-return programme M22 108.8 R121 55.2 M22 (E75) 240.4 R200 45.6 M22 (E763) 132.9 R266 29.2 TOTAL 2,945 Local examination of proposed iRAP countermeasure schemes and locations The network is almost 3,000km in length and accounted for 11% of Serbia’s paved roads. 10% Carriageway Type European Road Road Hierachy Cyclists Network Single 60% National roads 96%

Motorway and European road Regional Preliminary scheme dual 40% network 63% roads 4% investigation studies 20% Pedestrians

Detailed design, costing, final evaluation and implementation

11% Other Road Users Shared iRAP Local responsibility input input

11 Road Assessment Programme

The STAR RATINGS system The Table below plots the percentage of the network by Star Rating for each of the road users on the iRAP network in Serbia. It shows that the majority of roads rated are 3-star or less for pedestrians, bicyclists and car occupants. Fig 3 Specialised software enabled accurate road measurements to be made 1% 5 Star To support the rating process, iRAP has developed a 4 Star detailed road inspection manual that provides protocols 3 Star and guidance on assessing various road design features. 2 Star Because road design can vary significantly from country 1 Star to country, iRAP produces a road inspection manual tailored to each country’s needs with photos and Roads with descriptions of features to be rated. very low or no 36% flow are not Star Ratings rated 5% After the road inspection and rating process was completed, the data was loaded into iRAP’s customised online software to generate Star Ratings. The software was developed with the expertise of leading road safety research agencies worldwide, including ARRB Group (Australia), TRL () and the Midwest 28% Road inspections Research Institute (United States). Star Ratings are based on road inspection data and he iRAP inspections focused on more than 30 Following the completion of the video-based road design risk factors. They provide a simple and 6% different road design features that are known to inspection, each relevant design feature was measured objective measure of the level of safety that is ‘built in’ to 30% T influence the likelihood of a crash and its severity. and rated according to iRAP protocols. A rating team the road for car occupants, bicyclists and pedestrians. 9% These features include design, road cross- comprising staff from AMSS and Belgrade University Star Ratings are produced on sections of road where section and markings, roadside hazards, footpaths undertook desktop inspections by conducting a virtual there is demand for use by each of the road user types. and bicycle lanes. drive-through of the road network, looking at video In circumstances where, for example, bicycles do not The inspections were undertaken in two stages: frames at 100m intervals. use a particular section of road, then a bicycle Star 1.A specially equipped survey vehicle, provided by The raters used specialised software to make Rating is not produced. Importantly, Star Ratings can be the RACC, recorded video images of the road as it accurate measurements of elements such as completed without reference to detailed crash data. travelled the network during April 2008. widths, shoulder widths and distance between the road The safest roads (four and five stars) have road safety 2.The video was later viewed by analysts, or raters, edge and fixed hazards, such as trees or poles. features that are appropriate for the prevailing traffic and assessed according to iRAP protocols. speeds. They are likely to be straight, have two lanes At the completion of the rating, a detailed condition in each direction separated by a wide median, have 67% The survey vehicle was capable of recording video report that summarizes many roadway characteristics good line-marking, wide lanes and sealed shoulders, images of a road (at intervals of 10 metres) using an for the iRAP network was able to be produced. safe roadsides and good provision for bicyclists and 30% 85% array of cameras aligned to pick up panoramic views The report contains information such as the proportion pedestrians, such as dedicated paths and crossings. of the road (forward, left side, and right side). The main of the network that has paved shoulders and number The least safe roads (one and two stars) do not forward view was calibrated to allow measurements of locations that have adequate pedestrian crossings. have road safety features that are appropriate for the such as lane width, shoulder width and distance to This data forms the basis for Star Ratings and the prevailing traffic speeds. They are likely to carry two-way roadside hazards. The vehicles can drive along the road Countermeasure Programme. traffic with only one lane in each direction, have lots of at almost normal speed while collecting this information. curves and intersections, narrow lanes, gravel shoulders, poor line marking and unprotected hazards such as 3% trees, poles and steep embankments close to the side Fig 2 A specially equipped vehicle of the road. They are also unlikely to have dedicated iRAP Car recorded video of the road network facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Occupant These ratings are shown as a colour-coded map, Star Rating iRAP indicating how many stars a section of road has Pedestrian achieved. Where lanes of traffic are separated by a Star Rating median or safety barrier (a divided road), Star Ratings are iRAP Bicyclist calculated separately for both directions of travel. Star Rating

3Star Ratings for motorcyclists were not produced because sufficient supporting crash data required for calibration of the model was not available. 134For the purposes of this report, posted legal speed limits were used. Note: percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 5See Star Rating Roads For Safety: The iRAP Methodology for more information on how Star Ratings are determined.

12 13 Road Assessment Programme Serbia: Star Ratings Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrates Star Ratings for car occupants, bicyclists and pedestrian on the network. These maps show the risk for the respective individual road user when vehicles travel within the legal speed limit on the inspected road network.

HUNGARHUNGARY HUNGARY

SUBOTICA SUBOTICA

0315 060 Miles 2) 0212.5M550 iles 2) 66 66 (E (E 17 17 1. 1. M M SEVERNO - BACKI SEVERNO - BANATSKI SEVERNO - BACKI SEVERNO - BANATSKI 0315 060 Km 0525 0100 Km

ZAPADNO - BACKI ZAPADNO - BACKI

M1 M1

M ROMANIA M ROMANIA 8 8

2 2

2 2

( (

E E JUŽNOBACKI 75 JUŽNOBACKI 75

) Zrenjanin ) Zrenjanin

M7 M7 SREDNJE - BANATSKI SREDNJE - BANATSKI M7 M7 Novi Sad Novi Sad M7 M7 .1 CROATIA .1

M M 22 0) 22 0) (E (E7 (E (E7 M1 (E70) .9 M1 (E70) .9 75) M1 75) M1 SREMSKI SREMSKI JUŽNOBANATSKI JUŽNOBANATSKI

1 1 2 2 M Pancevo M Pancevo Belgrade Belgrade M2 M2 R R 26 9 4 26 9 4 6 M1 6 M1 M M 25 25 .1 .1 .1 .1 M19 M25 M25.1 M19 M25 M25.1 M19 M19 MACVANSKI MACVANSKI ) R2 1 ) R2 1 0 ) 0 ) 0 25. 0 25. 763 771 763 771 M2 M (E M2 M (E (E 25 (E 25

3 M 3 M 22 GRAD BEOGRAD BRANICEVSKI 22 GRAD BEOGRAD BRANICEVSKI

M M

B B

M M O O 2 M1 2 M1 3 3

S S M4 PODUNAVSKI (E M4 PODUNAVSKI (E

7 7

N N 5 BORSKI 5 BORSKI

KOLUBARSKI ) KOLUBARSKI )

I I

A A ) ) M22 M22

( 71 ( 71

A A E7 E7 63) 7 63) 7 E E

( (

N N 5 5

2 2 D D Bor Bor

ŠUMADIJSKI M ŠUMADIJSKI M

H

H Kragujevac Kragujevac E E M1 M1

(E7 (E7 R

R 5) 5) Z Z M5 M5 ( POMORAVSKI ( POMORAVSKI

E76 M22 E76 M22 E E 3) 3)

) Uzice ) Uzice

G G 63 M 63 M 7 61) 7 61)

1 (E7 1 (E7 O O (E 5 (E 5 (E M (E M 1 Guca 1 Guca 2 2

7 7 V V M M Kraljevo 5 Kraljevo 5

) ) I

I M22 ZAJECARSKI M22 ZAJECARSKI

N N A A M5 M5 (E (E M 761) M 761 2 2 ) 1 MORAVICKI M1 1 MORAVICKI M1

(E (E75 (E (E75 76 ) 76 ) 3) 3) RASINSKI 1) R12 RASINSKI 1) R12 77 1 77 1 5 (E 5 (E ZLATIBORSKI M2 ZLATIBORSKI M2 M M

8 8 M M RAŠKI NIŠAVSKI NIS 1. RAŠKI NIŠAVSKI NIS 1. 12 12 ( ( E80 E80 M8 2 M8 2 2 Kopaonik ) 2 Kopaonik ) M M

M8 Novi Pazar M8 Novi Pazar PIROTSKI PIROTSKI M M TOPLICKI 1 TOPLICKI 1

(E (E 7 7 5) 5)

MONTENEGRO KOSOVSKA - MITROVACKI JABLANICKI KOSOVSKA - MITROVACKI JABLANICKI

Pristina KI Bicyclist STAR RATINGS Pristina KI PECKI S PECKI S AV ) AV ) R 5 R 5 (E7 (E7 KOSOVSKI MO KOSOVSKI MO car occupant STAR RATINGS O M1 PCINJSKI  O M1 PCINJSKI P BUBULGLGARARIAIA P BULGARIA O - O - K K S  S OV OV  S S KO  KO  PRIZRENSKI PRIZRENSKI  Prizren  Prizren    Very low/no bicycle flow MACEDONIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF

Dual carriageway roads Dual carriageway roads Single carriageway roads Single carriageway roads ALBANIA Other primary roads Fig 4 Car occupant Star Ratings Other primary roads Fig 5 Bicyclist Star Ratings District boundaries District boundaries

14 15 Road Assessment Programme Serbia: Countermeasure

HUNGARHUNGARY programme

SUBOTICA

0315 060 Miles 2) ore than 70 proven road improvement options were 66 the three key steps (E 17 1. M considered to generate affordable and economically SEVERNO - BACKI SEVERNO - BANATSKI 0525 0100 Km Drawing on data that underpins the Star Ratings sound countermeasure programmes that can save 1 M and traffic volume data, estimates of deaths and lives. These road improvement options range from low-cost road injuries throughout the network were generated. ZAPADNO - BACKI markings and pedestrian refuges to higher-cost intersection

M1 For each section of road, countermeasure options M ROMANIA upgrades and full highway duplication. 2 8

2

2

( E were tested for their potential to reduce deaths JUŽNOBACKI 75 The countermeasure programme was produced in three key ) Zrenjanin and injuries. For example, a section of road that M7 steps (see right). In the Serbia project, three countermeasure SREDNJE - BANATSKI has a high level of risk for pedestrians might be M7 programme options were generated by using progressively Novi Sad M7 a candidate for a pedestrian refuge, pedestrian .1 higher threshold level benefit cost ratios. This resulted in plans

M crossing or signalised . 22 0) at three levels of investment, as shown in Table 3. The first (E (E7 M1 (E70) .9 75) M1 SREMSKI programme used a minimum BCR of 1, the second programme Each countermeasure option was assessed JUŽNOBANATSKI 3 1 2 M Pancevo used a BCR of 3, while the third programme used a BCR of 5. against affordability and economic effectiveness Belgrade M2 R The programme with a minimum BCR of 3 was criteria. ‘Threshold’ benefit-cost ratios were set 26 9 4 6 M1 M 25 recommended. This programme has the potential to prevent as a minimum requirement as a starting point for .1 .1 M19 M25 M25.1 M19 MACVANSKI 5,592 deaths and injuries. For each dinar invested in the the analyses. This ensured that the programme is ) R2 1 0 ) 0 25. 763 771 programme, there would be a saving of 8 dinars in terms affordable and represents a good investment return M2 M (E (E 25

3 M 22 GRAD BEOGRAD BRANICEVSKI M

B of crash costs avoided. and responsible use of public money. M

O 2 M1 3

S M4 PODUNAVSKI (E

7 N 5 BORSKI

KOLUBARSKI )

I A ) M22

( 71 A E7 63) 7 E

( N 5 2 D Bor ŠUMADIJSKI M Table 3: Countermeasure programme options (million dinars, 20 years) H Kragujevac E M1 (E7 R 5)

Z M5 ( POMORAVSKI Minimum BCR E76 M22 E 3)

) Uzice G 63 M 7 61) 1 (E7 O (E 5 (E M 1 3 5 1 Guca 2 7

V M Kraljevo 5 )

I M22 ZAJECARSKI N Estimated cost to build and maintain 10,986 din 4,297 din 2,208 din A M5 (E M 761) 2 1 MORAVICKI M1 KSI saved 7,629 5,592 4,217

(E (E75 76 ) 3) RASINSKI 1) R12 77 1 Value of safety benefit 44,935 din 32,940 din 24,842 din 5 (E ZLATIBORSKI M2 M

8 M NIS 1. RAŠKI NIŠAVSKI 12 Cost per KSI saved 1.44 din 0.77 din 0.52 din ( E80 M8 2 2 Kopaonik ) M Benefit cost ratio 4 8 11 M8 Novi Pazar PIROTSKI M TOPLICKI 1

(E KSI = killed and serious injuries. 7 5)

MONTENEGRO KOSOVSKA - MITROVACKI JABLANICKI The top five countermeasures identified within the programme with a minimum BCR of 3 are shown in Table 4. By investing 531 million dinars in the top countermeasure – shoulder sealing – 966 deaths and serious injuries could be avoided. A complete summary of the recommended countermeasures is provided in the Table 5 on page 20.

pedestrian STAR RATINGS Pristina KI PECKI S AV ) R 5 (E7 KOSOVSKI MO  O M1 PCINJSKI P BULGARIA Table 4 Top five countermeasures in the recommended countermeasure programme (million dinars, 20 years) O - K  S OV S  KO Countermeasure type Sites / length Estimated cost KSI saved Value of safety Cost per KSI BCR PRIZRENSKI  Prizren benefit saved  Shoulder sealing (>1m) 174km 531 din 966 5,690 din 0.55 din 11 Very low/no pedestrian flow MACEDONIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF Signalised crossing 336 sites 624 din 680 4,005 din 0.92 din 6 Overtaking lane 50km 624 din 500 2,945 din 1.25 din 5 Dual carriageway roads Single carriageway roads Road surface improvement 279km 392 din 498 2,934 din 0.79 din 7 ALBANIA Other primary roads Fig 6 Pedestrian Star Ratings Roundabout 247 sites 196 din 472 2,778 din 0.42 din 14 District boundaries KSI = killed and serious injuries.

16 17 Countermeasure programme The raw condition data collected as Implementation

If the recommended programme were implemented, it could represent a total investment of 1.4 billion dinars part of the iRAP process will provide per year over 3 years. The programme has the potential to prevent almost 5,600 deaths and injuries over 20 years, which equates to a 14% reduction on the iRAP network. Initial priority for funding should be given to a valuable resource to authorities lower-cost, high-return countermeasures that can be implemented quickly. Programme implementation will require local knowledge and detailed planning and design. Typically, investigating appropriate speed the planning and engineering steps involved in implementing a countermeasure programme include: • local examination of proposed iRAP countermeasures management initiatives • preliminary scheme investigation studies • detailed design and costing, final evaluation and construction. The detailed results of the project and online software that enabled the iRAP analyses to be undertaken have been provided to the Public Enterprise Roads of Serbia for further exploration and use.

Speed

Speed management is a critical aspect of managing The iRAP Star Ratings presented in this report are speed profiles to become part of the detailed project a safe road system. The risk of death or serious injury is based on the posted speed limits of the inspected planning and site assessments. minimised in any crash, where: roads. They implicitly assume that traffic operates at that The raw condition data collected as part of the iRAP speed. The iRAP model may therefore underestimate the process will provide a valuable resource to authorities • vulnerable road users (e.g. motorcyclists, bicyclists casualties and the associated countermeasure benefits investigating appropriate speed management and pedestrians) are physically separated from Fig 7 The iRAP software enables the location on roads where typical speeds are in excess of the initiatives. This may include a more detailed analysis cars and heavier vehicles, or traffic speeds are of countermeasures to be assessed posted speed limit. Moreover, worthwhile traffic calming of results to investigate where there are low speed 40km/h or less countermeasures may not be triggered, even though limits without accompanying engineering solutions, or iRAP will support the process with best practice • opposing traffic is physically separated and they may offer good investment returns. may include a review of the speed limits and facilities advice through the iRAP Road Safety Toolkit roadside hazards are well managed In the iRAP results, roads with very low posted speed in place on roads that rate poorly for pedestrian or (www.irap.org/toolkit). Building on decades of research limits may achieve a relatively high Star Rating (4 or bicycle safety. • traffic speeds are 70km/h or less for occupants into causes and prevention of serious injury on roads, 5-star), even though the engineering features may The iRAP results therefore should help enable a of cars on roads where opposing traffic is not the iRAP Road Safety Toolkit offers engineers and be of a lower standard and/or the road environment professional discussion between Police and highway physically separated or roadside hazards exist. planners a free resource on the cost and life-saving does not support the speed limit (for example, a lack authorities about their goals and respective roles potential of more than 35 safety countermeasures. An issue that emerged from assessments in iRAP’s pilot of traffic calming). in enforcement and engineering so each can A key component of the implementation process countries, and now in the Serbian assessments, is the It is possible to perform the iRAP analyses using speed contribute best to ensuring safe speeds. It is for Serbia’s should be traffic volume and crash data collection discrepancy between permitted (posted) speeds and estimates or survey data in order to ensure that Star stakeholders to decide if and when a national debate for a before-and-after evaluation of the improvements the speeds at which vehicles travel. In some locations, Rating results reflect the speeds actually travelled and which educates the public about the importance of that will demonstrate their success and enable a for example, posted speed limits in Serbia are set at the most appropriate countermeasures are triggered. speed limits should occur. Clearly such a debate is likely second-phase improvement programme for the very low speeds that are unlikely to be complied This may be an important future piece of work in to make more sense if launched alongside a major next investment period to be developed based on with without continuous enforcement or robust traffic Serbia. Once the broad shape of the countermeasure programme of safety engineering improvements with documented local experience. calming measures. programme has been agreed, it is necessary for travelled emphasis on safe driving, safe vehicles and safe roads.

18 19 Countermeasure programme HUNGARY

SUBOTICA The following table provides a summary of the recommended countermeasure Fig 8 

2) programme for the Serbian network with a minimum BCR of 3. Safety benefits are Number of deaths and 66 (E 17 1. serious injuries avoided M ROMANIA Present Value figures discounted over 20 years at a rate of 4% per annum. during 20 years (per km) SEVERNO - BACKI SEVERNO - BANATSKI The map in Figure 8 illustrates where the largest reductions in deaths and serious injuries could Table 5 Recommended countermeasure programme for Serbia (million dinars, 20 years) occur if the recommended programme is ZAPADNO - BACKI

implemented. Black sections of road show where M 1 8 M more than 14 deaths and injuries per kilometre 2 2

Value of safety Cost per KSI ( Countermeasure type Sites / length Estimated Cost KSI saved BCR E Road surface improvements could be avoided, while green sections show JUŽNOBACKI 7 benefit saved 5

) Zrenjanin where no improvement to the roads are proposed. Traffic calming 59 km 125.04 din 419 2,469.86 din 0.3 din 20 M7 on the M25.1 SREDNJE - BANATSKI Skidding results in many crashes, particularly on at Improve curve delineation 82 km 57.65 din 150 886.46 din 0.38 din 15 M7 Novi Sad intersections and pedestrian crossings. Poor M Central hatching 93 km 37.69 din 91 534.78 din 0.42 din 14 7 KSI saved per Km over 20 years CROATIA .1 skid-resistance can occur when the road surface Roundabout 247 sites 196.06 din 472 2,777.58 din 0.42 din 14 0 becomes worn. Improving friction levels to new M ) 22 70 ( (E M1 (E70 E .9 surface standard can reduce crashes by 35%. Unsealed shoulder (>1m) 27 km 17.83 din 34 200.06 din 0.53 din 11 0.01 – 1.50 ) 75 M1 SREMSKI ) 1.51 – 4.50 JUŽNOBANATSKI Visit www.irap.org/Toolkit for more Signalise intersection (4-leg) 3 sites 6.24 din 12 69.39 din 0.53 din 11 1 2 4.51 – 14.00 M Pancevo Shoulder sealing (>1m) 174 km 531.09 din 966 5,690.15 din 0.55 din 11 > 14.00 Belgrade M R 2 2 9 4 Clear roadside hazards 6 1 6 M 9 km 1.96 din 3 20.15 din 0.57 din 10 M (bike lane) 25 Dual carriageway roads .1 .1 M19 M25 M25.1 Signalise intersection (3-leg) 1 site 2.08 din 3 18.43 din 0.67 din 9 Single carriageway roads M19 MACVANSKI Other primary roads ) R .1 Additional lane 22 km 257.25 din 376 2,214.57 din 0.68 din 9 3 2 6 0 5 ) 0 2 1 7 77 M M (E District boundaries E 5 ( 2 2

3 M Right turn provision at existing 2 7 sites 3.15 din 4 26.41 din 0.7 din 8 2 GRAD BEOGRAD BRANICEVSKI M

signalised site (3-leg) M

2 M 3 1 Right turn lane M PODUNAVSKI ( 1 site 1.75 din 2 14.39 din 0.72 din 8 4 E 7 (unsignalised 3 leg) 5 BORSKI KOLUBARSKI )

) M22 1 Bicycle lane (on-road) 178 km 80.1 din 109 641.81 din 0.74 din 8 (E7 7 63) 7 E (

5 Refuge Island 481 sites 240.22 din 315 1,853.54 din 0.76 din 8 2 Bor ŠUMADIJSKI M Road surface improvement 279 km 392.32 din 498 2,934.33 din 0.79 din 7 Kragujevac M 1 Roundabouts on (E7 Sideslope improvement - Left 4 km 5.62 din 7 42.03 din 0.79 din 7 5) M 5 (E POMORAVSKI 763 M22 Delineation and signing Uzice ) the M25 (E771) 3) 6 M 25 sites 17.3 din 21 123.68 din 0.82 din 7 7 61) A roundabout is a one-way road around a circular E 1 (E7 (intersection) ( 5 Guca ( M 1 E 2 M 7 central island at an intersection. Roundabouts Kraljevo 5 Parking improvements 1 km 1.22 din 1 8.75 din 0.82 din 7 2 ) M2 ZAJECARSKI cause little delay to traffic flows and require less Sideslope improvement - Right 4 km 6.76 din 8 47.27 din 0.84 din 7 M 5 (E maintenance than signalized intersections. M 761 2 ) 1 MORAVICKI M1 Right turn provision at existing ( ( Roundabouts can reduce crashes 70% in rural E E7 17 sites 12.94 din 15 87.92 din 0.87 din 7 7 5) 6 signalised site (4-leg) 3 areas and 55% in urban areas. ) ) R RASINSKI 71 12 E7 1 Regulate roadside 5 ( Visit www.irap.org/Toolkit for more ZLATIBORSKI M2 8 km 8.83 din 10 59.57 din 0.87 din 7 Overtaking lanes on the M21 M commercial activity 8 Overtaking lanes provide a safe opportunity for traffic M RAŠKI NIŠAVSKI NIS 1. 12 Signalised crossing 336 sites 624.39 din 680 4,005.4 din 0.92 din 6 ( E8 to overtake and can improve traffic flow. If provided M8 2 0 2 Kopaonik ) Shoulder sealing (<1m) 88 km 146.37 din 159 938.91 din 0.92 din 6 with regular safe opportunities, drivers will be less likely M to make dangerous overtaking attempts. Overtaking M8 Novi Pazar Unsealed shoulder (<1m) 0.2 km 0.1 din 1 0.6 din 0.94 din 6 PIROTSKI M TOPLICKI 1 lanes can reduce crashes by 25%. (E 7 Unsignalised crossing 93 sites 79.02 din 80 472.97 din 0.98 din 6 5 Visit www.irap.org/Toolkit for more ) Lane widening (>0.5m) 3 km 21.96 din 22 130.29 din 0.99 din 6 Road resurface 6 km 30.42 din 30 175.66 din 1.02 din 6 KOSOVSKA - MITROVACKI JABLANICKI Improve delineation 102 km 136.07 din 121 713.12 din 1.12 din 5 MONTENEGRO / flexi-post 2 km 2.97 din 2 14.49 din 1.21 din 5 Signalised BULGARIA Duplication with median barrier 1 km 20.98 din 17 101.55 din 1.22 din 5 crossings I Pristina K PECKI S PCINJSKI on the M22 (E763) V Overtaking lane 50 km 624.39 din 500 2,944.82 din 1.25 din 5 A ) R 75 O (E Pedestrian crossings give KOSOVSKI M 1 Restrict/combine direct O M P 0.1 km 0.1 din 1 0.41 din 1.26 din 5 priority to vehicles, and - O access points K S Sealed shoulders pedestrians can cross when V O Roadside barriers - Left 43 km 259.23 din 202 1,189.8 din 1.28 din 5 S O the signals halt vehicle traffic. K on the M22 Roadside barriers - Right 42 km 248.92 din 191 1,127.8 din 1.3 din 5 They can be used at mid- PRIZRENSKI Unforgiving of simple mistakes, unsealed or narrow Central median barrier block locations or incorpo- Prizren 3 km 29.72 din 21 126.17 din 1.39 din 4 ALBANIA shoulders can cause a vehicle to run off the road (no duplication) rated into existing signals at or veer into oncoming traffic. A sealed road Lane widening (up to 0.5m) 21 km 67.9 din 46 271.74 din 1.47 din 4 intersections. Signalised surface provides the best grip for tyres. Sealed crossings can reduce crashes Bicycle lane (off-road) 0.2 km 1.25 din 1 4.71 din 1.56 din 4 MACEDONIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF shoulders can reduce crashes by 30%. by up to 30%. Visit www.irap.org/Toolkit for more Total 4,296.88 din 5592 32,939.54 din 32.60 din 8 Visit www.irap.org/Toolkit for 0 15 30 60 Miles more 20 6 Safety benefits are present value figures discounted over 20 years at a rate of 4% per annum. 22 0 20 40 80 Km This programme Serbia: has the potential to Conclusions Acknowledgements prevent 5,592 deaths RAP Serbia is the first full assessment to be completed inspections are done, the learning can be captured iRAP acknowledges the generous financial support Special thanks are due to: as part of iRAP’s second wave of projects, following and the Star Ratings improved. of the World Bank’s Development Grant Facility and • Violeta Maksimovic of AMSS and Demir Hadzic of ithe completion of the pilot projects in Chile, Costa In this report, Star Ratings are presented and a Global Road Safety Facility. iRAP also acknowledges the Roads and Safety Department of the Ministry Rica, Malaysia and South Africa. The project is the first countermeasure programme is recommended. the generous financial support of the FIA Foundation. of Infrastructure for their practical help and support and injuries. For each to benefit from a new version of the iRAP tools. Success This programme has enormous potential to reduce • Said Dahdah of the World Bank Global Road road death and injury on the inspected network. in Serbia, and each iRAP country, has been largely iRAP acknowledges the in-country leadership Safety facility for his technical advice dependent on the formation of an enthusiastic and Summary data have been presented, however iRAP of the Automobile and Motorcycle Association highly-skilled multi-agency stakeholder team to steer, results available to stakeholders include a detailed of Serbia (AMSS). • Svetlana Vukanovic of the World Bank dinar invested in the lead and help execute the project. breakdown of the countermeasure programme and for her in-country guidance The Serbian iRAP Steering Committee has provided the precise locations where they should be considered iRAP is grateful to the Steering Committee and • Tony Bliss for his guidance in the execution excellent practical support for the project and their for implementation. Executive Committee for their support and of the project involvement in the project from an early stage has A key moment will arise when the iRAP team and commitment to the project. The Steering and Executive • Miodrag Minić the AMSS Secretary General for ensured that the assessment results can be used to local engineers come together after the assessments Committees include representatives from: programme, there enabling the project in Serbia, in particular the their maximum effect in Serbia. have been completed to review, sense check and • Automobile and Motorcycle Association support for the visiting project staff. During the project, AMSS led and executed the refine the recommended countermeasure programme of Serbia (AMSS) in-country aspects of the project and ensured that generated by the tools. • Public Enterprise Roads of Serbia the aims of the project have been communicated Early action will mean early benefits. It is hoped that The iRAP core team has been responsible for the would be a saving of • Traffic Police Department of the effectively in the media. They provided an excellent an investment programme for Serbia will be agreed coordination of the project. iRAP is particularly grateful Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia representation of civil society and have provided links over the coming months in cooperation with Public to RACC for the opportunity to use its vehicle and to the other stakeholders including government officials Enterprise Roads of Serbia, Ministry of Infrastructure and • Roads and Safety Department of the inspection equipment and also for its technical input and other local road safety experts. the World Bank. Ministry of Infrastructure into the project notably Lluis Puerto and Jose Tirone. 8 dinars in terms of The work completed in Serbia will make a significant Together, with the international partners for the iRAP • World Bank This report was written and prepared by Dr Suzy contribution to road safety, not only in the country, but initiative, the team will continue to contribute to road • Faculty of Traffic Engineering Charman, James Bradford and reviewed by Dr Steve globally. Scope for continuous improvement is built into safety knowledge globally and help drive investment of the Belgrade University. Lawson, Greg Smith, Grace Dawson and Joanne Hill. crash costs avoided. the architecture of the Star Rating calculation: as more programmes that will save many lives every year.

© Copyright International Road Assessment Programme 2009. Content from this report, except for photographs, maps and illustrations, may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes providing the source is acknowledged.

Exclusion of liability: This material is not to be relied upon as advice, and in particular the Authors and Publishers accept no responsibility for loss or injury suffered by any person as a consequence, direct or indirect, of anything contained in this report.

23 24 25 The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to saving lives through safer roads.

iRAP Serbia is a partnership between iRAP, Automobile and Motorcycle Association of Serbia (AMSS), Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Interior, Public Enterprise Roads of Serbia, World Bank and the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

This report presents Star Ratings and a countermeasure programme for almost 3,000km of strategically important roads throughout Serbia. It identifies opportunities to prevent more than 5,000 deaths and serious injuries over 20 years.

iRAP Serbia is financially supported by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society and iRAP.

�������������� ������������������������������

iRAP Worting House, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK RG23 8PX Telephone: +44 (0)1256 345598 Email: [email protected]

www.irap.org April 2009 iRAP502.09 v1.0