1 / 25

Japan

Japan. D a = expected damage in collision accidents after installation M = maintenance costs I = annual allocation for cost of barrier installation. Japan. Barriers in Japan are required as follows [JRA, 1964]: On city roads elevated more than 2 meters

bruce-wade
Download Presentation

Japan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Japan • Da = expected damage in collision accidents after installation • M = maintenance costs • I = annual allocation for cost of barrier installation

  2. Japan Barriers in Japan are required as follows [JRA, 1964]: • On city roads elevated more than 2 meters • On other roads elevated more than 2 meters and with a radius of curvature of less than 300 meters

  3. Japan • On roads alongside railways if the road is higher than the railway, or if the road is less than 1.5 meters below the railways, and the distance between them is less than 5 meters

  4. Japan Barriers in Japan are required as follows [JRA, 1964]: • On sections with S-shape curves with a radius of curvature less than 300 meters • On roads where the down gradient is more than 4 % • On medians less than 3 meters wide and subject to bad weather conditions

  5. France Barriers are required on autoroutes as follows: • On medians: • Where the median width is 5 meters and the expected ADT 5 years after opening of the road is at least 15000 vehicles, on 4 lane divided highways

  6. France • On bends along the edge of the carriageway having the smaller radius, when this is less than the normal minimum radius of 650 meters for a design speed of 100 km/hr or 1200 meters for a speed of 140 km/hr

  7. France Barriers are required on autoroutes as follows: • At the road edge: • Along the outside of bends having a radius less than the normal minimum radius for the road • On embankments where their height exceeds 4 meters, this height being reduced to 1 meter in cases of sudden changes of level

  8. France • In advance of ditches greater in depth than 0.5 meters • Barriers should always commence with a split end. On the median they should be sited as close to the center line as possible, and the road edge so that the traffic face coincides with the exterior of the hard shoulder

  9. Cost - Benefit Analysis • Benefit - cost ratio of alternative 2 compared to alternative 1 • B1, C1 = Benefits and cost of alternative 1 • B2, C2 = Benefits and cost of alternative 2 • Mak (1995)

  10. Cost - Benefit Analysis • What if we have 1 small project and 1 large project? The results of the ratio are the same, but we get a false analysis. • Mak (1995)

  11. Expected Accident Cost - Simplified Mak et al. (1998) E(AC) = Expected accident cost V = Traffic volume, ADT P(E) = P(encroachment) P(A|E) = P(accident given an encroachment) P(Ii|A) = P(injury severity i given an accident) C(Ii) = Cost associated with injury severity i n = Number of injury severity levels

  12. Cost Effectiveness 1. Determine effectivenes: E = Hazard(before) - Hazard(after) 2. Compute cost-effectiveness:

  13. Review of Standards for Virginia

  14. Name Years GR HDW 1989-1996 GR 1A 1966-1978 GR 1B 1966-1978 ALT 1B 1975-1978 GR 1C 1966-1978 GR 2 1989-1996 GR 2A 1966-1996 GR 2B 1966-1978 ALT 2B 1975-1978 GR 2C 1966-1978 GR 2D 1978 GR 3 1966;1989 GR 4 1966-1978 GR 4A 1970-1978 GR 5 1966-1978 GR 6 1970-1996 GR 7 1989-1996 GR 8 1989-1996 GR 8A 1989-1996 GR 8B 1989-1996 GR 8C 1989-1996 Review of Standards for Virginia

  15. Name Years GR 9 1996 GR 10 1996 GR SP 1989-1996 BN 1 1996 BGR 01 1996 GR FOA-1 1989-1996 GR FOA-2 1989-1996 GR FOA-4 1996 GR INS 1989 MB 1A 1966-1973 MB 1B 1966-1973 MB 1C 1966-1973 MB 3 1978-1996 MB 3A 1966-1989 MB 3B 1966-1978 ALT 3B 1975-1978 MB 3C 1966-1978 MB 4 1966-1978 MB 5 1966-1968 MB 5A 1978-1989 MB 6A 1971-1975 MB 6B 1971-1975 Review of Standards for Virginia

  16. Name Years MB 7A 1978-1989 MB 7A PC 1989 MB 7B 1978-1989 MB 7C 1978-1989 Review of Standards for Virginia

  17. Review of Standards for Virginia GR HDW GR 1A GR 1B ALT 1B GR 1C GR 2 GR 2A GR 2B ALT 2B GR 2C GR 2D GR 3 GR 4 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

  18. Review of Standards for Virginia GR 4A GR 5 GR 6 GR 7 GR 8 GR 8A GR 8B GR 8C GR 9 GR 10 GR SP BN 1 BGR 01 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

  19. Review of Standards for Virginia GR FOA-1 GR FOA-2 GR FOA-4 GR INS MB 1A MB 1B MB 1C MB 3 MB 3A MB 3B ALT 3B MB 3C MB 4 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

  20. Review of Standards for Virginia MB 5 MB 5A MB 6A MB 6B MB 7A MB 7A PC MB 7B MB 7C 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

  21. A Data Driven Approach to Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation of Guardrail

  22. Outline • Objectives and activities • Background • Risk and Safety • Traffic Risk Assessment • Accident Statistics • Examination of HTRIS • Data Collection • Corridor Analysis • Future Work

  23. Objectives • Conduct background research into risk assessment and safety evaluation • Identify necessary data for risk assessment of traffic accidents • Gather accident statistics • New Kent County as case study • Establish method for retrieving information from HTRIS • Make recommendations for future methods of gathering data

  24. Objectives (cont.) • Examine available data • Generate method to measure risk • Evaluate safety at various locations • Examine and evaluate safety countermeasures

  25. Risk • Measurement of probability and severity of adverse effects (Lowrance, 1976) • The potential for unwanted negative consequences of an event or activity (Rowe, 1977) • Chancing of negative outcome (Rescher, 1983) • Expected result of the conditional probability of the event times the consequences of the event given that it has occurred (Gratt, 1987) • Unintended or unexpected outcome of a decision or course of action (Wharton, 1992)

More Related