Baltic Regional Seminar on Road Safety Engineering

1

• Baltic Regional Seminar on Road Safety
  Engineering
• Vilnius, 23-24 October 2007

Main EU initiatives on road infrastructure
safety Sandro Francesconi Unit E3 Road
safety Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport European Commission
2
The European Union

• The European Union is a family of democratic
  European countries, committed to working together
  for peace and prosperity
• The 27 Member States countries that make up the
  EU remain independent, sovereign nations
• They have set up common institutions to which
  they delegate some of their sovereignty so that
  decisions on specific matters of joint interest
  can be made democratically at European level

3
The main institutions

• The EU's decision-making process and the
  co-decision procedure involve mainly three
  institutions

• the European Commission, which seeks to uphold
  the interests of the Union as a whole.
• the European Parliament (EP), which represents
  the EUs citizens and is directly elected by
  them
• the Council of the European Union, which
  represents the individual Member States

In principle, the Commission proposes new laws,
but it is the Parliament and Council that adopt
them.
4
Legal instruments
5
(No Transcript)
6
Road safety policy
Mid term review of Road safety action programme
2006
White paper on Transport 2001
Road safety action programme 2003
7
Reminder...

• Over the period 2001-2010 -50 road accident
  victims (global target)
• A shared responsibility
• Integrated approach at the EU level

8
Fatalities - evolution 1990-2010
9
Lives saved - evolution 1990-2010
10
Situation in each EU Country fatalities /
population
11
Main causes of fatalities

• Speeding 11 000 / year
• Alcohol 10 000 / year
• No seat belts 10 000 / year
• Pedestrians 2 000 / year
• Saturday Night Fever 2 000 / year
• (pop aged 18-25 on week-end nights)

12
Road Infrastructure Safety Policy in the European
Union

• Directive 2004/54 on minimum safety requirements
  for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network
  (29 April 2004)
• Proposal for a Directive on road infrastructure
  safety management (5 October 2006)

13
 Tunnels Directive 
DIRECTIVE 2004/54/ECof the European Parliament
and of the Council
on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the
Trans-European Road Network 29 April
2004 http//ec.europa.eu/transport/road/roadsafe
ty/roadinfra/tunnels/index_en.htm
14
Facts

• EU tunnels are aging (traffic conditions have
  changed, equipment obsolete, no mechanism to
  improve safety)
• EU tunnel users have changed (lack of
  harmonisation)
• Many lives have been lost in recent years
• Direct and indirect costs resulting from the
  closure of a tunnel are huge

15
Directive 2004/54/EC of 29 of April 2004

• It applies to all tunnels in the Trans-European
  Road Network with lengths of over 500 m
• To ensure safety in tunnels by preventing
  critical events that may endanger human life, the
  environment and tunnel installations, as well as
  by the provision of protection in case of
  accidents
• Tunnels shall meet minimum safety requirements

16
Objectives

• Prevention of incidents
• To prevent events that endanger human life, the
  environment and tunnel installations
• Reduction of their consequences
• Enable people involved in the incident to rescue
  themselves
• Allow intervention of road users to prevent
  greater damage
• Ensure efficient action by emergency services
• Protecting the environment
• Limiting material damage

17

Requirements
1. Organisational requirements
To harmonise the organisation of safety at
national level and to clarify roles and
responsibilities.
2. Technical requirements (structural equipment)
Based on existing harmonisation efforts at
international level. 5 equipment classes
according to traffic and tunnel type, as well as
traffic volume and tunnel length.
The specified requirements deal with
infrastructure, operation, vehicles in road
tunnels and tunnel user information.
18
Organisational requirements

Tunnel Manager
Administrative Authorities
Appointed by Member States. Overall
responsibility for safety. Authorises the
commissioning of new tunnels. Can suspend the
operation of a tunnel.
Responsible for the safety of the tunnel. The two
administrative authorities of bi-national tunnels
recognise one and the same Tunnel Manager.
Independent Safety officer
Nominated by the Tunnel Manager for each tunnel.
Controls and supervises all preventive and
safeguard measures.
19
Technical requirements

Tunnel classification
Escape routes
5 classes of tunnel equipment classes according
to traffic and tunnel type, traffic volume and
tunnel length. Class I tunnels need to comply
with the strictest safety requirements
For class I and II tunnels with bi-directional
traffic, the construction of special escape
routes or safety galleries is mandatory.
Number of tubes
Ventilation
In the event of a fire the ventilation system
either extracts smoke from the tunnel or pushes
smoke in one direction. Tunnels should respect
strict ventilation equipment rules according to
their type.
Single-tubes tunnels should only be built if
long-term forecasts show that traffic will remain
moderate.
20
Technical requirements

Emergency exits
If local conditions show that the above mentioned
provisions are insufficient, short perpendicular
escape gallery or a parallel safety gallery
should be constructed.
Distance between lay-bys
Shall not exceed 1000 m.
Additional provisions for twin-tube tunnels
In the event of an incident the other tube is
used as escape and rescue route. Pedestrian
cross-connections shall link the tubes at maximum
intervals of 500 m. Propagation of smoke of gases
from one tube to the other shall be prevented.
21
Technical requirements

Additional provisions for tunnels with a
gradient, congested or underwater

• longitudinal gradients above 5 shall not be
  permitted
• stricter ventilation standards apply to
  unidirectional congested tunnels
• transport of dangerous goods restricted in
  underwater tunnels

Minimum equipment for all tunnels
Indication of escape routes by lighting and by
signing every 25 m fire extinguishers every
150 m and at entrances water supply every 150 m
radio broadcasting with special channels for
emergency video monitoring systems in tunnels
longer than 1 000 m etc.
Road signs
Control rooms
Specific uniform signs shall be used to designate
safety facilities.
The administrative authority will decide whether
tunnels should have a control room
22
Additional technical requirements

• Works in tunnels
• Dangerous goods treatment
• Accident management
• Distance between vehicles
• Overtaking
• Tunnel closure
• Control center

23
Structural measures
Summary table
24
Technical equipmentSummary table
25
Derogations

• Where requirements can be achieved only at
  disproportionate cost,
• implementation of equivalent or improved risk
  reduction measures may accepted.
• BUT, efficiency of measures shall be demonstrated
  through risk analysis
• Design factors and traffic conditions shall be
  taken into account
• traffic volume, type of traffic, number of heavy
  goods vehicles, tunnel characteristics, e.g.
  length, gradients and geometry
• By 2009 the Commission will publish a report on
  the practice followed in the Members States

26
The deadlines of the Directive

• 30-04-2006 Date of transposition
• 30-10-2006 Assessment of compliance timetable
• 30-04-2007 Report on planned measures by MS
• 30-04-2009 Report on MS practices by EC
• 30-04-2014 Refurbishment of existing tunnels
• 30-04-2019 Refurbishment of existing tunnels ()
• () for MS where Km of Tunnels/Km of TERN gt EU
  average

27
Conclusions

• The Directive has been transposed by the majority
  of the MS
• In many MS, the minimum requirements will be
  applied also on tunnels beyond the scope of the
  Directive

28
 Infrastructure Directive 
Proposal for a DIRECTIVEof the European
Parliament and of the Council
on road infrastructure safety management 5
October 2006 http//ec.europa.eu/transport/roads
afety/infrastructure/safety_mgnt_en.htm
29
Focus on Road infrastructure
Todays main problems

• Decreasing budgets for road infrastructures vs.
  more attention to the level of safety of roads
• Inability of old roads to absorb the increasing
  traffic
• High risk road sections (even on modern roads!)
• Various levels of responsibility within each
  Member State (inefficient organisation)
• Heterogeneous signs, signals, road markings, road
  side features (even in a single Country!)

30

• Infrastructure Safety?

31

• Infrastructure Safety?

32

• Infrastructure Safety?

33
Road Infrastructure Safety Management Objectives

• To bring about a common high level of safety of
  roads in all EU Member States

• To ensure that safety is integrated in all phases
  of planning, design and operation of road
  infrastructure

• To use the limited funds for more efficient
  construction and maintenance of roads

34
Focus on Road Infrastructure
A coherent package of measures

• Regulatory actions necessary on
• Safety Impact Assessment (new roads - pre-design
  phase)
• Safety Audits (new roads - design, construction
  early operational phases)
• Network Safety Management - management of High
  accident concentration sections (existing roads)
  
• Safety Inspections (existing roads)
• Package of measures recommended by the High Level
  Group on Road Safety

35
Focus on Road Infrastructure
A coherent package of measures

• The procedures are internationally recognised as
  best practices in road safety engineering
• Their effectiveness is demonstrated by solid
  costs/benefits analyses.
• The Directive instrument would not impose a
  harmonisation of the methods. Member States
  having these procedures already would not be
  required to change their practices
• Positive comments on this proposal have been made
  in many occasions by several international
  organisations, often having different interests,
  like FIA, IRU, ERF, ACEM, FEMA, CEDR.

36
Diffusion of the procedures in the Member States

• A High Level Expert Meeting on Infrastructure
  Safety was organised in Vienna on 24-25 January
  2006
• The table summarises in which of the 25 Member
  States the instruments are already in use

37
Road Safety Impact Assessment

• Definition

Strategic comparative analysis of the impact of
new road or a substantial modification to the
existing network on the safety performance of the
road network
Objective
To demonstrate the implications of different
planning alternatives of a project, whether new
construction or changes in the existing
infrastructure
38
Road Safety Audit

• Definition

Systematic and technical safety check relating
to the design characteristics of a road
infrastructure project Auditors can be of the
same administration, but shall not be involved in
the conception of the project
Objective
To identify and rectify dangerous road elements
at the different stages of a project
39
Network Safety Management

• Definition

Reduction of future accidents by targeting
remedial treatment to parts of the network where,
respectively, accidents and accident costs
reduction potential are the highest
Objective
To reduce future accidents by targeting remedial
treatment to parts of the network where accident
cost reduction potential is highest
40
Road Safety Inspections

• Definition

Periodical safety review of a road in operation
Objective
To recognise risks and to prevent accidents by
measures for implementation within one year
41
Road infrastructure safety management Remedial
measures
Protected light columns
42
Road infrastructure safety management Remedial
measures
Safe and effective safety barriers transition
43
Road infrastructure safety management Remedial
measures
Safety zone before unprotected rock
44
Direct Impacts on Safety

• 600 fatalities and 7000 injury accidents per year
  if applied on TEN roads
• 1.300 fatalities per year could be saved if the
  safety management would be applied to the main
  road network in the EU
• According to the monetary estimations of the
  White Paper, this corresponds to 5 billions per
  year
• Font Thematic network ROSEBUD

45
Public consultation resultsApril May 2006

• Road safety research institutes and experts,
• Health, transport and road safety organisations,
• Users and road operators associations
• unanimously welcome the proposal.
• Further comments or proposals
• 1) Some consider that harmonising legislation
  would be more effective
• Such an option may be difficult to implement
• 2) Some propose to extend the provisions of the
  Directive to roads not being part of the TERN
• For institutional reasons, the Directive proposal
  features the extension as a recommendation only

46
Public consultation results

• 11 out of 15 national governments welcome the
  approach of the EC (flexible framework)
• 4 MS would prefer still lower levels of
  prescription and would encourage exchange of best
  practices
• Comments from the EC
• Exchange of best practices has been going on for
  years without registering any general improvement
  
• MS with lower road safety record - thus at the
  receiving end of best practices - are in
  general asking for a more structured approach.
  This is a further indication that exchange of
  best practices as such does not work on European
  level.

47
State of the dossier at Council

• Several Land Transport Working Parties were
  organised by the FI, DE and PT Presidencies
• An Expert Meeting was organised in March 2007 to
  review the Annexes. Experts from 19 MS were
  present
• The text has been revised and in some cases
  lightened, without loosing any of the instruments
• On 2 October 2007 a general approach approved at
  unanimity has been reached by the TTE Council

48
State of the dossier at Parliament

• The rapporteur Mr Helmut Markov MEP (GUE - NG)
  produced a report that made the directive more
  constrictive
• On 5 June 2007 the TRAN Committee approved the
  amendment to withdraw the proposal of the
  Commission (19 in favour, 18 against).
• However, on 9 July 2007, the plenary of the
  Parliament referred the report back to the TRAN
  Committee before voting it
• Mr Markov has been reappointed rapporteur and
  will draft a new report by November 2007

49
Thematic networks funded by EC in the field of
Infrastructure Safety

• RIPCORD/ISEREST Road Infrastructure Safety
  Protection
• www.ripcord-iserest.com/
• IN-SAFETY Infrastructure and Safety
• www.insafety-eu.org/
• RANKERS Ranking for European Road Safety
• www.erf.be/section/ep/rankers
• RISER Roadside Infrastructure for Safer Roads
• www.erf.be/section/ep/riser
• FORMAT Fully Optimised Road Maintenance
• www.rws.nl/rws/dww/home/format/

50
Thematic networks funded by EC in the field of
Infrastructure Safety

• ROSEBUD Road Safety and Environmental
  Benefit-Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for
  Use in Decision-Making
• partnet.vtt.fi/rosebud/
• EuroRAP II European Road Assessment Programme
• www.eurorap.org
• EURO AUDITS European Road Safety Auditor
  Training Syllabus
• IASP Identification of Hazard Location and
  Ranking of Measures to Improve Safety
• IMPROVER Impact Assessment of Safety Measures
  for Vehicles and Road Equipment

51
Websites on Europa http//ec.europa.eu/...

• Commission transport website transport/index_en.
  html
• Road safety section transport/roadsafety/index_e
  n.htm
• CARE (the EU road accident data base)
  transport/care/index_en.htm
• Charter
• transport/roadsafety/charter.htm

52

• Thank you for your attention!