Thematic Network Road Safety and Environmental Benefit-Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Use in Decision-Making - WP 4 – Testing the efficiency assessment tools on selected road safety measures Public May 2005 Funded by the European Commission - WP 4 – Testing the efficiency assessment tools on selected road safety measures Public ROSEBUD Road Safety and Environmental Benefit-Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Use in Decision-Making Contract No: GTC2/2000/33020 Network co-ordinator: Federal Highway Research Institute - BASt, Germany WP 4 co-ordinator: Austrian Road Safety Board – KfV, Austria Editors: Martin Winkelbauer and Christian Stefan (KfV) Partners in WP 4: Centre d’Etudes Techniques de l’Equipement du Sud Quest – CETE SO, France Technion, Transportation Research Institute – TRI, Israel National Technical University of Athens – NTUA, Greece Transport Research Centre – CDV, Czech Republic Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT, Finland Austrian Road Safety Board – KfV, Austria Report No: D6 Date: May 2005 Thematic Network funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport responding the Thematic programme “Competitive and Sustainable Growth” of the 5th framework programme TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................7 CASE A: ANTI-LOCK BRAKING SYSTEMS FOR MOTORCYCLES ..............................12 by Martin Winkelbauer, ......................................................................................................12 Austrian Road Safety Board (KfV), Austria ........................................................................12 CASE B1: SECTION CONTROL – AUTOMATIC SPEED ENFORCEMENT IN THE KAISERMÜHLEN TUNNEL (VIENNA, A22 MOTORWAY)..................................24 by Christian Stefan ............................................................................................................24 Austian Road Safety Board (KfV), Austria .........................................................................24 CASE B2: AUTOMATIC SPEED ENFORCEMENT ON THE A13 MOTORWAY (NL) .....44 by Christian Stefan ............................................................................................................44 Austian Road Safety Board (KfV), Austria .........................................................................44 CASE C1: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............................53 by Petr Pokorný .................................................................................................................53 Transport Research Centre, CDV, The Czech Republic....................................................53 CASE C2: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS IN AUSTRIA....................................................63 by Petr Pokorný .................................................................................................................63 Transport Research Centre, CDV, The Czech Republic....................................................63 CASE E1: FOUR-ARM ROUNDABOUTS IN URBAN AREAS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC............................................................................................................72 by Petr Pokorný .................................................................................................................72 Transport Research Centre, CDV, The Czech Republic....................................................72 CASE E2: SPEED HUMPS ON LOCAL STREETS ..........................................................82 by Victoria Gitelman and Shalom Hakkert, ........................................................................82 Transportation Research Institute, Technion, Israel ..........................................................82 CASE E3: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ...................................................................96 by George Yannis and Petros Evgenikos ..........................................................................96 NTUA / DTPE, Greece.......................................................................................................96 CASE F1: GRADE-SEPARATION AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS..................................114 by Marko Nokkala, ...........................................................................................................114 VTT Building and Transport, Finland ...............................................................................114 CASE F2: GRADE-SEPARATION AT ROAD-RAIL CROSSINGS.................................128 by Victoria Gitelman and Shalom Hakkert, ......................................................................128 Transportation Research Institute, Technion, Israel ........................................................128 CASE G: MEASURE AGAINST COLLISIONS WITH TREES ........................................141 by Philippe Lejeune,.........................................................................................................141 CETE SO, France............................................................................................................141 CASE H: INTRODUCING SIGNAL CONTROL AT A RURAL JUNCTION.....................155 by Victoria Gitelman and Shalom Hakkert, ......................................................................155 Transportation Research Institute, Technion, Israel ........................................................155 CASE I1: INTENSIFICATION OF POLICE ENFORCEMENT (SPEED AND ALCOHOL) .........................................................................................................168 by George Yannis and Eleonora Papadimitriou ...............................................................168 NTUA / DTPE, Greece.....................................................................................................168 CASE I2: CONCENTRATED GENERAL ENFORCEMENT ON INTERURBAN ROADS IN ISRAEL ............................................................................................185 by Victoria Gitelman and Shalom Hakkert, ......................................................................185 Transportation Research Institute, Technion, Israel ........................................................185 CASE J1: 2 + 1 ROADS IN FINLAND ............................................................................204 by Marko Nokkala, ...........................................................................................................204 VTT Building and Transport, Finland ...............................................................................204 CASE J2: 2 + 1 ROADS IN SWEDEN ............................................................................214 by Marko Nokkala, ...........................................................................................................214 VTT Building and Transport, Finland ...............................................................................214 CASE K: COMPULSORY BICYCLE HELMET WEARING.............................................222 by Martin Winkelbauer, ....................................................................................................222 Austrian Road Safety Board, KfV, Austria........................................................................222 SHORT TRAINING COURSE ON EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT....................................241 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................249 ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................261 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION by Victoria Gitelman and Martin Winkelbauer Every year, more than 1 million injury accidents (including 50,000 fatalities and 1.7 million people injured) occur on public roads throughout the European Union. Hence, improving road safety was given top priority in the European Union’s Transport Policy. To reach the overall objective of halving the number of fatalities by 2010, it is essential to know the reduction potentials of the wide variety of already-existing road safety measures. A prerequisite for this task is reliable knowledge about the effectiveness and efficiency of the road safety measures considered. Previous ROSEBUD work packages answered the question how efficiency assessment tools are currently used in different countries (WP1), what factors prevent the use of those tools (WP2) and what can be done to overcome existing barriers and shortcomings (WP3). The main task of work package 4 (WP4) is to test the developed efficiency assessment tools on selected road safety measures. The WP4 program was as follows: • to carry out a certain number of Efficiency Assessment Studies • to report experiences gained from those studies • and to evaluate, through these practical examples, the results of previous work packages (in treating barriers and the use of standardised procedures, respectively) 1.1 Selecting the cases for Efficiency Assessment In accordance with the above program, eleven test cases were chosen, covering as many types of road safety measures as possible (see Table 1). The applicability of the developed analyses techniques of WP3 were tested in light of both the limitation of available data and restrictions of decision-making procedures in different countries. Table 1: Selected cases for evaluation in work package 4 Nr. Case Study Road Safety Approach Level Countries Responsibility A ABS motorcycle Vehicle National AT AT B Section control User + Enforcement Local