Road Safety Barrier Problem: Addressing Deficiencies and Improving Effectiveness

2. Substandard Inputs • Poor design or hardware specifications • Poor installation practices = The Road Safety Barrier Problem Substandard Outcome The barrier is a greater roadside hazard than that which it was intended to shield. Safe System Context

3. What are the deficiencies in the existing installations? • Type • Proportion • What are the potential interventions to address these? How do we improve Road Safety Barrier effectiveness?

4. Representative links on New Zealand State Highway 2: • Napier Region: Woodville to Hastings • Tauranga Region: SH33 to Matata • Tauranga Region: Athenree to Katikati • 80 installations surveyed in June 2010 Road Safety Barrier Legacy Systems Study

5. Potential Contribution to Crash Outcome • Rating of Minor/Significant/Serious • Design and Hardware Selection • Installation • Maintenance Assessment Criteria

6. General • Age to nearest 5 years. • Hazard description. • Overall length estimate to nearest metre. • Design • Length of need. • Clear area at the ends of the barrier. • Appropriateness of the installed end treatment. •  Installation • Compliance with current performance standards, • supplier or agency installation guidelines and delineation. • Barrier including height, rail and post condition. • Maintenance • General condition and outstanding routine maintenance. Indicative Assessments

7. Length of Need: Measure = length deficiency • Clear Area: Measure = length or width deficiency • Barrier System Selection Rating: Design and Selection

8. Rating: Installation (Worst Conditions) M/S/S = Minor or Significant or Serious

9. Rating: Maintenance (Worst Conditions)

10. The combination of defect ratings were then assigned a relative priority: • Priority 1 (P1): easily corrected or is fundamental to the safe operation of the barrier system, or both. Examples would be missing or loose anchor cables, or an impact head that is blocked by debris. • Priority 2 (P2): more generalised deficiency such as a significant or serious height variation. • Priority 3 (P3): more extensive intervention that would effectively result in the complete redesign and installation of the system. An example of this would be a significant or serious shortfall of the length of need requirement. Relative Mitigation Process

11. The Results

12. Summary: Significant and Serious Deficiencies

13. Napier Significant and Serious Deficiencies: % by Age

14. Tauranga Significant and Serious Deficiencies: % by Age

15. Significant and Serious Issues • All systems surveyed had significant or serious design or installation deficiencies • Systems are often faulty through a combination of deficiencies • Older system deficiencies reflect lack of understanding around design and hardware • Newer system deficiencies suggest design and installation quality processes are not adequate • 60% and 80% had design deficiencies due to inadequate length of need or clear area • About 40% had non-compliant or inappropriate end treatments • About 86% had significant or serious installation deficiencies but most were readily repairable • About 75% had end treatment maintenance deficiencies • About 20% had barrier maintenance issues Interpretation of Findings

16. Adopt a regime that most effectively represents the vehicle fleet • Cease installation of non-compliant legacy hardware • Higher risk non-compliant legacy hardware installations should be programmed for replacement • Establish performance measures in design and installation in maintenance contracts • Monitor progress towards achieving road safety barrier quality assurance system and deficiency databases General Recommendations

17. Develop a quality assurance audit regime based on having appropriately • trained people responsible for approving the design and installation of barrier systems • Develop an industry training regime that addresses design, installation, and maintenance issues • Develop and disseminate standard plans for typical design and installation details • (e.g. transitions and curved rail end treatments). • Program the replacement of the serious and significant risk legacy installations that will require substantial replacement. Usually a combination of inadequate length of need, clear area, or non-compliant terminal ends. Design Recommendations

18. Develop a road safety barrier installation and maintenance manual to cover the identification, installation and maintenance checklists for common barrier hardware • Have the maintenance consultant assess all installations and develop a prioritised deficiency database • All installation deficiencies that can be readily addressed (e.g. incorrect bolting patterns, missing bolts, delineation and grading) should be remedied while carrying out routine maintenance Installation Recommendations

19. Have all maintenance contractors review their current barrier inventory, noting that they are required to maintain the barriers in a condition fit for purpose • Change contract documents to reinforce the need for routine rather than random maintenance or repair after vehicle impacts • Audit the inventory and use whatever authorisations available to achieve the intended purpose of having all installations fit for purpose • All installations should be routinely maintained, irrespective of whether they have design or installation issues that cannot be readily addressed Maintenance Recommendations

20. Implementing the most effective compliance regime • Accepting and installing only compliant hardware • Developing a certification regime for both designers and installers to improve quality delivery. Key Policy Interventions to Improve Road Safety Barrier Effectiveness