Implementation of rural road safety schemes: lessons from the Netherlands

Raoul BeunenCatharinus F. Jaarsma

Henk-Jan Kooij

Wageningen University, the Netherlandsrinus.jaarsma@wur.nl

Contents:

1. Background2. The Dutch sustainable road safety

programme3. Experiences4. Conclusions & Lessons

Background:

1. Traffic accidents: a large social problem world wide. 2. Many programs developed to improve road safety and

according goals.

For example: – EC: halving the number of fatalities on European

roads (down 25,000) by 2010. – NL: to reduce the number of injuries by 30% and the

number of casualties by 40% in 2020, compared with 2002.

4

Background /2

• The Dutch started an innovative approach in the 1990s: the “Sustainable Road Safety Programme”

• In 2005 continued with “Advancing Sustainable Safety” (ASS)

• 2004: in NL 50 people per million inhabitants died in traffic (in comparison: EU 95).

From the point of view of victim and casualty reduction the programme is successful. The implementation processes, however, are another story.

Aim

To elaborate the experiences with the implementation of road safety measures in the Netherlands:

–Which lessons can be learned from the different implementation processes? –What are the possible reasons for opposition against measures and can they provide innovative solutions?

The Dutch sustainable road safety programme in brief

1. From a reactive approach to a preventive one, in which preventing accidents is central.

2. The idea: to make the traffic system inherently safe.3. One of the leading principles: homogenity of traffic.

Striving for small differences- in speed and direction of movement between

traffic participants - in mass and vulnerability

The Dutch sustainable road safety programme /minor rural roads

Minor rural roads have: 1. two-directional traffic, on one carriageway with narrow

pavement widths (generally below 4.5m).2. mixed traffic (lorries, cars, bicycles and pedestrians). 3. high volumes (1000 motor vehicles AADT is not

exceptionally) and high speeds of motorised traffic. 4. High accident risk

Traffic on minor rural roads: not homogeneous, and therefore: speed reduction

8

The casualty risk per million motor vehicle kilometres on MRRs is high: 0.64 (motorways: 0.07 and arterial highways: 0.31)

The Dutch sustainable road safety programme: rural speed reduction

1. Area-oriented with so-called 60 km/h-zones.

2. Zone-boards along all entrances

10

Entrance to a 60 km/h-zone

The Dutch sustainable road safety programme: rural speed reduction

1. Area-oriented with so-called 60 km/h-zones. 2. Zone-boards along all entrances

3. A so-called simple design: speed inhibitors (speed humps and raised levels at intersections) at strategic places (especially at intersections and exits).

4. Adjustment of the division of the carriageway (by painted road markings).

12

Raised level at intersection &Adjusted division of carriageway

The Dutch sustainable road safety programme: rural speed reduction

In general, positive experiences with these technical interventions:

- a considerable accident reduction - measures are cost-effective

Experiences with implementation:Riethoven and Ooststellingwerf

Experiences: Riethoven

1. Reasons: traffic safety and rat run traffic.2. Approach: integrated - traffic management

including awareness of the landscape, cultural heritage and ecology.

3. Design: measures that fit in the landscape – an integrated road design for the area.

A new speed reduction measure was included, the mushroom barrier.

Experiences: Riethoven

The mushroom barrier: a round speed hump in a narrowing of the road.

16

17

Experiences: Riethoven /2

Soon after the realisation 2 groups, pro and con: • One group required the removal of the mushroom barriers

(too much discomfort & even car damage). • Other people, in contrast, wanted to keep these

mushroom barriers because these measures greatly improved the safety of the roads.

Evaluation: 20% reduction of through traffic a speed reduction from 80 km/h to 60

km/h. Despite these positive results the municipality decided to

meet the criticism and to remove the speed humps.

Experiences: Ooststellingwerf

Rural traffic safety: a long history. 1. Complaints on speed and/or safety of some

inhabitants related to specific road sections. 2. Other inhabitants denied the problem, probably

because of fear for traffic measures. 3. Rat run traffic on long distance routes played

an important role in the safety problems.

19

Experiences: Ooststellingwerf /2

Development of a traffic management plan, with a vision on the structure of the total municipal road network. In general:

• through traffic concentrated on a few roads fitted to deal with higher volumes

• simultaneously on most minor roads a considerable reduction of present high volumes will appear.

The procedure included several meetings with inhabitants, local business, etc., which was a rather revolutionary approach on this local level at that time.

20

Experiences: Ooststellingwerf /3• The translation of the management plan into measures

proved to be a difficult point. • Breakthrough: the opportunity for cost reduction of the

road management, because of lower volumes on a large part of the minor roads.

• Start of a project to improve the integration of rural roads in the landscape, as an alternative for the implementation of technical measures.

• Pilot projects, like crossings on roads for through traffic within villages were successful.

• The measures were appreciated because they contributed to the rural character of the area.

Green approach: soft speed hump (deviating pavement in the asphalt) a narrowed profile (raised verge on the right hand side),with informal passing bays

22

Conclusions• The implementation of measures is technically easy and

the effects have proved to be positive. • The implementation in planning and decision making can

be more difficult, because different actors are involved in this political process, with a strong influence on local politicians

• Opposition against measures comes from road users, local inhabitants and local entrepreneurs; they all have different reasons to object to specific measures.

Even when the speed reduction and/or the decrease of accidents aimed for were realised, the technical interventions had to be withdrawn in some cases.

Lessons from implementation /1

1. Take into account the whole road network within an area.

2. The implementation is not only the realisation of specific measures, but it is a process that needs to start from a non-traditional vision about traffic management in an area.

3. To be successful it requires a different approach to traffic and road management and another approach of the planning process.

Lessons /2

4. Involve inhabitants and local entrepreneurs from the beginning of the project.

5. These people can have very different views about traffic problems and about possible measures.

6. Their knowledge about the area and their opinion about traffic related problems are important input for the project.

If these people do not see the necessity of measures it is hard to get their support for the implementation of Sustainable Safety.

Lessons /3

7. The case studies show that it is possible to link road design and landscape design and improve traffic safety.

A more “green” approach provides innovative solutions, because it can be done with cheaper measures and requires less maintenance. The overall costs are therefore lower than with more traditional approaches.