1 / 25

# Japan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

• Da = expected damage in collision accidents after installation

• M = maintenance costs

• I = annual allocation for cost of barrier installation

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

• 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

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

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

• 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

Barriers are required on autoroutes as follows:

• 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

• 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

• 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)

• 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)

Mak et al. (1998)

E(AC) = Expected accident cost

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

1. Determine effectivenes:

E = Hazard(before) - Hazard(after)

2. Compute cost-effectiveness:

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

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

MB 7A 1978-1989

MB 7A PC 1989

MB 7B 1978-1989

MB 7C 1978-1989

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

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

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

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

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

Outline Evaluation of Guardrail

• Objectives and activities

• Background

• Risk and Safety

• Traffic Risk Assessment

• Accident Statistics

• Examination of HTRIS

• Data Collection

• Corridor Analysis

• Future Work

Objectives Evaluation of Guardrail

• 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

Objectives (cont.) Evaluation of Guardrail

• Examine available data

• Generate method to measure risk

• Evaluate safety at various locations

• Examine and evaluate safety countermeasures

Risk Evaluation of Guardrail

• 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)