Safer-Greener Highway Pilot Project

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 0
About iRAP
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to saving
lives through safer roads.
iRAP works in partnership with government and non-government organisations to:
inspect high-risk roads and develop Star Ratings and Safer Roads Investment Plans
provide training, technology and support that will build and sustain national, regional and local
capability
track road safety performance so that funding agencies can assess the benefits of their investments.
Road Assessment Programmes (RAP) are now active in more than 50 countries throughout Europe, Asia
Pacific, North, Central and South America and Africa.
iRAP is financially supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society. Projects receive support
from the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, automobile associations, regional development banks and
donors.
National governments, automobile clubs and associations, charities, the motor industry and institutions such
as the European Commission also support RAPs in the developed world and encourage the transfer of
research and technology to iRAP. In addition, many individuals donate their time and expertise to support
iRAP.
For more information

This report was prepared by:
Greg Smith
Regional Director, Asia Pacific
M: +61 414 859 457
P: +61 2 6283 8154
E: greg.smith@irap.org
To find out more about the programme, visit www.irap.org. You can also subscribe to WrapUp, the iRAP enewsletter, by sending a message to icanhelp@irap.org.
International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2010

iRAP technology including protocols, processes and brands may not be altered or used in any way without the express
written agreement of iRAP.
iRAP is registered in England & Wales under company number 05476000.
Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS.
Executive Summary
India is undergoing rapid development and economic growth, averaging around 8% per annum. The nations
1.3 million kilometre road network is expanding quickly, with the government aiming to build 7,000km of new
roads every year (Smith, 2010). Indias vehicle fleet is burgeoning, with car and motorcycle sales averaging
16% and 9% growth per annum respectively in the five years to 2009 (Mohan et al, 2009). However, this
expansion does not come without costs. Recent data shows that 118,239 people were killed in road crashes
in 2008, an increase of 3.2% on the previous year (National Crime Records Bureau, 2009).
As part of efforts to prevent road deaths and serious injuries, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)
and the World Bank created the Safer-Greener Highways Pilot, to develop a model road that has safety
standards that are comparable to those in high-income countries. US $25 million has been allocated for this
project. iRAP was invited by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) to assist in developing a
plan for the safer component of the project, which focuses on the section of National Highway 1 (NH-1)
between the Delhi Haryana Border (km 29.3) and the southern end of the Panipat Toll Road (km 86.0).
The section of NH-1 between New Delhi and Panipat has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. It is
now largely a 6-8 lane divided highway carrying in the order of 40-100,000 vehicles per day and catering for
diverse traffic (ranging from very slow speed tractors to high speed cars) and large numbers of pedestrians
and bicyclists. The highway transects a number of urban areas where pedestrian movements between
residential and commercial premises is exceptionally high. This presents a specific challenge of managing
conflicting priorities: catering for high volumes of traffic and freight at high speed; and providing safe and
convenient access for local communities and vulnerable road users.
By international standards, road crash casualty rates on sections of NH-1 are exceedingly high. For
example, 15 people were reportedly killed on the section between km 8 and km 16 in 2008. This translates
into a rate of some 560 deaths and serious injuries per billion vehicle kilometres travelled (ksi/bvkt), which is
far above the EuroRAP threshold of 180 ksi/bvkt for the High Risk category of roads (see for example, Road
Safety Foundation, 2009). Anecdotal evidence indicates that numbers of deaths increased following the
widening of this section of road. Overall, it is estimated that 89 people are killed on the km 29.3 to km 86.0
section of NH-1 each year.
iRAP Road Protection Scores and Star Ratings based on a detailed inspection and assessment of 50 road
attributes at 100 metre intervals indicate that the road is constructed reasonably well for vehicle occupants,
with a significant proportion of the road rating 4-stars. Nonetheless, there is substantial room for
improvement, particularly for the section between approximately 29km and 40km, where the ratings decline,
largely as a result of the presence of numerous intersections.
However, the road does not cater well for vulnerable road users, especially pedestrians and bicyclists. Much
of it rates within the 1 and 2-star category for these vulnerable road users. This corresponds with visual
observations of the road, which revealed numerous locations where pedestrians and bicyclists must take
risks to cross and travel along the road.
The three Safer Roads Investment Plan options in this report prioritise countermeasures that will maximise
the prevention of deaths and serious injuries within the available budget. The plan largely focuses on:
reducing risk at intersections
reducing the risk associated with run-off road crashes by improving shoulders and reducing the
severity of roadsides
providing facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
A summary of the three investment plan options is shown in the table below. Taking Plan 1 as an example,
by investing US $22.0 million, the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road would be reduced by
26%, preventing more than 5,120 deaths and serious injuries over 20 years. The overall benefit cost ratio of
this approach would be 4:1.
Overview of investment plan options ($US)
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Investment (000)
$22,000
$14,000
$6,700
Economic benefit (20 years) (000)
$88,000
$82,000
$66,000
10
Before countermeasures
89
89
89
After countermeasures
66
68
72
Prevented
23
22
18
19,635
19,635
19,635
14,515
14,885
15,785
Prevented
5,120
4,750
3,850
Reduction
26%
24%
20%
$4,200
$2,900
$1,700
Benefit cost ratio

Deaths (per year)
Deaths and serious injuries (20 years)
Cost per death and serious injury prevented
The selection of an appropriate level of investment is open for decision by the World Bank and NHAI. Final
implementation of the plan will preferably include the following steps:
local examination of proposed iRAP countermeasures
preliminary scheme investigation studies
detailed design and costing, final evaluation and construction.
The detailed results of the project and online software that enabled the iRAP analyses to be undertaken are
available to stakeholders for further exploration and use.
Environmental initiatives aside, in order to make NH-1 a Safer-Greener Highway, efforts that go beyond the
engineering improvements discussed in this report will be necessary. Significant benefits could be realised
through coordinated targeting of risk factors road users (such as speeding, seat belt wearing and alcohol)
and vehicles as well as road infrastructure. The Road Safety Toolkit (www.irap.org/toolkit) and United
Nations Road Safety Collaboration Good Practice Manuals (WHO, 2009) provide further information on this
issue.
Further, research has demonstrated that it is crucial to ensure that local communities have the opportunity to
both contribute to road designs but also understand the intended use of various road design features (see for
example, BRAC, 2005). It is recommended that the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility and National
Highway Authority of India pursue these complementary approaches as part of the Safer-Greener Highway
Pilot.
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2

1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 6
National Highway 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8
On-Road Inspection and Rating ............................................................................................................... 10
Road Condition ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Star Ratings .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Safer Roads Investment Plan .................................................................................................................. 17
A Key Challenge: Safety in Towns on NH-1 ............................................................................................ 35
Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 37
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 40
10
References ............................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix 1 Countermeasure Costs .............................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 2 Summary Safer Roads Investment Plans 2 and 3 ..................................................................... 44
Introduction
The World Bank Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) requested that iRAP undertake a small-scale project on
National Highway 1 (NH-1) in India. The primary focus of the project is the approximately 55km section
running from the Delhi-Haryana Border to the southern end of Panipat. This section will be subject to civil
works as part of a Safer-Greener Highway Pilot for which US $25 million has been allocated under the
ongoing Restructuring of Lucknow-Muzaffarpur National Highway Project (LMNHP).
The safety interventions planned under the Safer-Greener Highway Pilot must be completed by June 2012.
The iRAP results will ideally be finalised during 2010, which will allow time for subsequent detailing of the
engineering requirements, procurement of works contract and execution of the works.
In addition to assessing NH-1, the project provides an opportunity to assess the feasibility of establishing a
longer-term iRAP programme in India. This includes assessment of institutional arrangements and
capabilities, data availability and the potential for iRAP recommendations to be implemented. This aspect of
the project will be managed separately to this report.
In this report, preliminary iRAP results are presented for consideration and discussion. It is expected that
results will be updated and amended based on advice from the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI),
the GRSF and other stakeholders.
1.1
Methodology
iRAP uses globally consistent models to produce motor vehicle occupant, motorcyclist, pedestrian and
bicyclist Star Ratings and Safer Roads Investment Plans. The methodology for each of these is described in:
Star Rating Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology.
Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology.
These reports are available for download at: http://www.irap.org/library.aspx. Stakeholders in India also have
access to the iRAP online software (www.iraptools.net), which enables examination of risk factors and
countermeasure triggers.
1.2
Results Online
This report provides an overview of the results produced in the project. Full results, including data tables,
interactive maps and download files, as well as data underpinning the analyses, are available in the iRAP
online software at www.irap.net.
Stakeholders in Andhra Pradesh also have access to the iRAP online software (www.iraptools.net), which
enables examination of risk factors and countermeasure triggers. Access to the iRAP online software is
protected with password access. For further information about using the software, contact Greg Smith at
greg.smith@irap.org.
Results Online
Web address:
http://asiapac.iraptools.net/irap22/
Username:
safer.greener
Password:
nh1
National Highway 1
National Highway 1 (NH-1) is in northern India and links the national capital, New Delhi, to the town of
Wagah in Punjab, near the India-Pakistan border. NH-1 is some 456km in length (centreline) and is
maintained by the NHAI. It forms part of the UNESCAP Asian Highway Network (AH1).
The section of road in this study runs from km 23.9 (the Delhi-Haryana border) to km 86.0 (the start of the
Panipat toll road). Both the northbound and southbound carriageways are included in the study.
Figure 2.1
2.1
National Highway 1
Road upgrades
The following upgrades have occurred on NH-1 recently:
Km 8 (Wazirabad Bridge) to Km 16: divided 8-lane completed.
Km 16 to Km 29 (Delhi-Haryana Border): widening to divided 8-lane under construction (likely

completion September 2010).
Km 29 to 86 divided: 6-lane completed.
Km 86 to 96 (end of Flyover at Panipat): 6-lane access controlled in-town bypass completed; 2-lane
service roads for local traffic completed.
Km 96 to Km 205 (Ambala): widening from divided 4-lanes to divided 6-lanes under construction
(construction started in mid-2009 and likely to be completed before end-2011).
Km 205 to Km 392 (end of Jallandhar Bypass): widening from divided 4-lanes to divided 6-lanes
under construction (construction started in mid-2009 and likely to be completed before end-2011).
Jallandhar-Amritsar-Wagha: widening from 2-lanes to divided 4-lanes under construction

(construction started around April-May 2009, and likely to be completed by end-2011).
On-Road Inspection and Rating
Using specially equipped vehicles, software and trained analysts, iRAP inspects and rates roads, focusing
on more than 30 different design features that are known to influence the likelihood of a crash and its
severity. These features include intersection design, road cross-section and markings, roadside hazards,
footpaths and bicycle lanes.
3.1
Inspection
The inspection of NH-1 was undertaken by Indian Road Survey and Management (IRSM) in December 2009
using a Hawkeye 2000 digital imaging system. The features of the inspection system were:
Use of three high-resolution digital cameras (1280 x 960 pixels).
Digital images were collected with a 150- to 180-degree field of view (centered on the travel lane) at
10 m intervals.
Geo-reference data was collected for each digital image, including distance along road (from
establish start point) and latitude or longitude.
The images were calibrated to enable detailed measurements of the road features.
It had the capability to provide automated measurements of radius of curvature for horizontal curves
and percent grade for vertical grades.
Although this report focuses on a 55km section of road, the actual inspection incorporated the length of road
between New Delhi and Panipat. It was completed in four stages, as follows:
1. Delhi to Panipat via the northbound main carriageway (including the access controlled portion in
Panipat)
2. Panipat via the southbound service road
3. Panipat via the northbound service road
4. Panipat to Delhi via the southbound main carriageway (including the access controlled portion in
Panipat).
A significant proportion of the highway (between km 16 to km 29) is under construction. The roads that were
in use for northbound and southbound traffic at the time were inspected.
Representatives from NHAI and L&T Panipat Elevated Corridor Limited had the opportunity to participate in
the inspection, which was completed in a single day. In addition to the formal inspection, further site visits
were undertaken separately to help ensure the analysis reflects local conditions.
Figure 4.1
Stakeholders attended a iRAP briefing on the project and the IRSM road inspection
vehicle
3.2
Rating
The digital images and georeference

e data was rated by ARRB Group in their Melbourne, Australia office.
The road ratings were undertaken in accordance with the iRAP Rating Manual using the Hawkeye
Processing Toolkit software. The road attributes rated are listed in Section 4 of this report.
Figure 4.2
NH-1
1 being rated using the Hawkeye software
The ratings produced by ARRB Group were subject to quality assurance check by an experience iRAP rater
based in Germany prior to any analysis occurring.
Safer-Greener
Greener Highways Pilot | 11
Road Condition
The following is a summary of the condition of the inspected roads for each of the road features included in
the iRAP models. More detailed reports on the road condition are available in the iRAP online software
(www.iraptools.net).
Star Ratings
iRAP Star Ratings are based on the road features listed in Section 4 and the degree to which they impact the
likelihood of crashes occurring and the severity of the crashes that do occur. The focus is on the features
which influence the most common and severe types of crash on roads for motor vehicles, motorcyclists,
pedestrians and bicyclists. They provide a simple and objective measure of the relative level of risk
associated with road infrastructure for an individual road user. 5-star (green) roads are the safest while 1-star
(black) roads are the least safe. Star Ratings are not assigned to roads where there is very low use by that
type of road user.
The Star Ratings are based on Road Protection Scores (RPS). The iRAP models calculate an RPS at 100
metre intervals for each of the four road user types, based on relative risk factors for each of the road
attributes listed in Section 4. More information on risk factors, RPS and Star Ratings is available in iRAP
(2009) Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology.
The overall Star Ratings for the section of NH-1 assessed is shown below in Table 6.1. It shows that for:
vehicle occupants, the majority (60%) of the road is 4-star
motorcyclists, almost half (49%) is 3-star
bicyclists, the majority (28%) is 1 or 2-star
pedestrians, the road is almost entirely (93%) is 1 or 2-star.
Table 6.1
Star Ratings
Figures 6.1 to 6.4 illustrate the RPS for vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists on the
northbound carriageway. A low RPS indicates a relatively low level of risk while a high RPS indicates a high
level of risk. Overlaid on the RPS chart is each of the Star Rating bands, with the green band representing 5stars (the safest) and the black band representing 1-star (the least safe).
The figures show that as a road user moves along the road, the level of risk that that individual faces can
vary dramatically. The most notable variations occur at intersections, where the high level of risk is donated
by a spike in the charts. The relatively small amount of variation in the RPS for vehicle occupants is a
reflection of the standardised, largely consistent design along the route. By comparison, risk for pedestrians
tend to vary substantially along the road.
Full details on both carriageways of dual carriageway and divided roads are available in the iRAP online
software (www.iraptools.net).
Figure 6.1
Road Protection Scores for vehicle occupants (northbound)
Figure 6.2
Road Protection Scores for motorcyclists (northbound)
Figure 6.3
Road Protection Scores for pedestrians (northbound)
Figure 6.4
Road Protection Scores for bicyclists (northbound)
Safer Roads Investment Plan
iRAP considers more than 70 proven road improvement options to generate affordable and economically
sound Safer Road Investment Plans that will save lives. Road improvement options range from low-cost road
markings and pedestrian refuges to higher-cost intersection upgrades and full highway duplication.
Plans are developed in three key steps:
1. Drawing on the Star Ratings and traffic volume data, estimated numbers of deaths and serious
injuries are distributed throughout the road network.
2. For each 100 metre section of road, countermeasure options are tested for their potential to reduce
deaths and injuries. For example, a section of road that has a poor pedestrian Star Rating and high
pedestrian activity might be a candidate for a pedestrian refuge, pedestrian crossing or signalised
pedestrian crossing.
3. Each countermeasure option is assessed against affordability and economic effectiveness criteria.
The economic benefit of a countermeasure (measured in terms of the economic benefit of the deaths
and serious injuries prevented) must, at a minimum, exceed the cost of its construction and
maintenance (that is, it must have a benefit cost ratio (BCR) greater than one). In many
circumstances, the threshold BCR for a plan is lifted above one, which has the effect of reducing
the overall cost of the plan. This ensures that a plan that is affordable for a country while still
representing a positive investment return and responsible use of public money can be generated.
The methodology underpinning this process is available in Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP
Methodology (www.irap.org/library.aspx).
6.1
Supporting data
Although the iRAP Safer Roads Investment Plans use standardised global methodology, each model is
calibrated with local data to ensure that the results reflect local conditions. In this section of this report, the
key data and methodology that relates specifically to NH-1 is described.
It is noted that only limited supporting data is available. Where data from primary sources (such as NHAI and
local police) is not available, secondary sources such as research papers and reports from nearby locations
have been draw on. Numerous assumptions are also made. It is anticipated that additional data from primary
sources will become as part of the review of this report.
6.1.1 Traffic volumes

Two sources of traffic volume data have been obtained for this study. According to L&T Ramboll (2009),
42,776 vehicles per day (vpd) pass through the toll gates at the northern end of the Panipat Toll Road.
UNESCAP information on the Asian Highway indicates that 67,000 vpd used NH-1 between Delhi and
Panipat in 2006.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the UNESCAP figures relates to the Delhi end of NH-1 (at
approximately km 8). The UNESCAP figure has been adjusted for growth in traffic. According to Mohan et al
(2009), car sales in India averaged 16% growth per annum in the five years to 2009. Similarly, the
Investment Commission of India has projected an annual increase of 12%15% for passenger traffic and
15%18% for cargo traffic in India (Ministry of Finance, 2004). During consultations with the World Bank and
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), it was suggested that a slightly lower growth rate of 10% per
1
annum would be appropriate for this road. On this basis, the volume of 67,000 vpd has been adjusted by an
annual growth rate of 10% per annum, giving a volume of 89,177 vpd in 2009 at km 8.
In order to create a baseline traffic volume profile for the road, it is assumed that volumes decrease in a liner
fashion between km 8 and km 96 (reducing in ~10km steps). This baseline volume was then adjusted
according to the area type (urban, semi urban or rural), as recorded during the road inspections. Rural flows
are assumed to be 25% lower than urban flows, and semi urban flows are assumed to be 10% lower than
urban flows. Using this approach, the following traffic volume profile was created.
Figure 6.1
Estimated traffic volume profile for NH-1 (29.3 km to 86.0 km)
Delhi, 15 June 2009.

6.1.2 Motorcycle traffic volumes

L&T Ramboll (2009) data indicates that motorcycles comprise 20% of traffic passing through the Panipat toll
gates, which is reflective of traffic movements within the Panipat town centre. UNESCAP data indicates that
motorcycles comprise 6% of traffic on the road. For the purposes of this study, motorcycles are considered to
make up 5-10% of traffic.
6.1.3 Number of deaths and serious injuries

The iRAP model is described in Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology as a crash allocation
model, whereby a known number of deaths and serious injuries is allocated to sections of a road network
according to the level of risk associated with their infrastructure features. This process is known as
calibration of the iRAP model.
In order to undertake this process, where actual numbers of deaths and serious injuries on a road are
unknown it is necessary to make an estimate. The number of deaths that occur on the study section of NH-1
was estimated using a number of sources. Data provided by the Jahangirpuri Police Station (via the NHAI
Sonepat Office) shows that during 2008, 15 people were killed on the section of NH-1 from km 8 to km 16.
This equates to a rate of 1.9 deaths per km per year. L&T data shows that during the in year to October
2009, 5 people were killed on the section from km 86 to km 96. This equates to a rate of 0.5 deaths per km
per year.
Other sources of data provide an indication of the death rates on sections of the Indian national network. For
example:
UNESCAP reports that 475 people were killed on the 350km long section of NH-1 between Panipat
and Amritsar in 2006 (1.4 deaths per km per year).
Mohan et al (2009) reports that the average fatality rate on national highways in non-hilly states
(which is consistent with this section of NH-1) was 0.59 persons per km per year in 2004.
Mohan et al (2009) also report that in the State of Punjab (to the north of Haryana), the crash rate
was 2.4 fatalities per km per year on national highways.
Ambabla Police report that 152 deaths occurred in on a stretch of NH-1 that is approximately 15km
long between 2006 and 2008 (3.2 deaths per km per year)
Padmanaban et al (2009) recorded 9 deaths in a 45 day period on a 60km section of NH-45 (1.2
deaths per km per year).
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the section of highway from km 23.9 to km 86.0, for which
there is no data directly available, experiences an average death rate of 1.5 deaths per km per year. This is
lower than the rate of the km 8 to km 16 section but higher than the rate for the access controlled section in
Panipat, and the overall rate for the national highways in India. However, it is broadly similar to the rate
reported for other sections of NH-1, and is arguably conservative as it does not take account of possible
under reporting, which the WHO estimates could be significant (WHO, 2009). Anecdotal evidence from local
NHAI engineers also indicates that official figures are likely to underestimate the number of road deaths.
It is noted that the km 23 to km 86 section of road in this study has a speed limit of 90km/h, which is higher
than the 60km/h limit on the km 8 to km 16 section of road. Other things being equal, this is likely to have the
effect of increasing the risk of death and injury. However, the km 23 to km 86 section of road does carry a
smaller amount of traffic which, other things being equal, will reduce the risk of death and injury. The
estimate of 1.5 deaths per km per year was made considering these factors.
On this basis it is estimated that 89 people are killed on the section of NH-1 between the Delhi-Haryana
Border and the southern end of the Panipat toll road. Using the iRAP standard assumption that for each
death 10 serious injuries occur, it is estimated that some 982 people are seriously injured on the road each
year (McMahon and Dahdah, 2008).
6.1.4 Road deaths by road user type

In order to allocate deaths and serious injuries to the network, the iRAP model requires an estimate of the
distribution of deaths by road type. The proportion of deaths on the road by road user type was estimated
following a review of data from various sources, as shown below in Table 6.1. The estimates used are
based on the average of the data.
Table 6.1
Proportion of road deaths by road user type

Proportion of road deaths
India
NH-45
NH-1 at Ambala
(WHO, 2009))
(Padmanaban et
al (2009))
(Ambala Police
Database)
Road user type
14 sections of
National
Highway
(Mohan et al
(2009))
Average
Vehicle
occupants
25%
22%
21%
32%
25%
Motorcyclists
46%
22%
26%
24%
30%
Pedestrians
22%
56%
33%
32%
36%
7%
0%
20%
12%
10%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bicyclists
Total
In its Global Status Report, the WHO estimates that the actual number of road deaths in India 196,445,
which is significantly higher than the reported figure of 105,725 (WHO, 2009).
6.1.5 Countermeasure costs

The iRAP model requires the input of local construction and maintenance costs for the 70 countermeasures
that are considered in the development of the Safer Roads Investment Plans. The costs are categorised by
area type (urban, semi-urban and rural) and upper and lower costs (low, medium and high).
The countermeasure costs for India were estimated using two sources, as follows:
Information provided during discussions with the NHAI Sonepat Project Director
iRAPs baseline countermeasure cost datasets, which draw on information from Malaysia, Vietnam,
Australia and Korea.
The countermeasure cost estimates used in this study are attached in Appendix 1. It is noted that the cost of
sealing shoulders is significantly lower than might normally be expected. This is because much of the NH-1
has sealed shoulders in place, but in many cases it is not usable by vehicles due to the presence of waste
soil, construction equipment etcP A nominal cost has been allocated to clear the shoulders.
6.1.6 Economic cost of a death and serious injury

Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology describes the iRAP methodology used to estimate
the economic cost of a road death and a serious injury in for iRAP projects. This approach is applied
globally by iRAP and is based on research undertaken by McMahon and Dahdah (2008). It is the approach
preferred by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility for iRAP projects. It is noted that this approach may
result in estimates that differ from those undertaken in the past using a different methodology.
The key equations used are:
the economic cost of a death is estimated to be: 70 x Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita
(current price)
the economic cost of a serious injury is estimated to be: 0.25 x economic cost of a death.
For the purposes of the analysis for India, GDP per capita (current price) is based on the 2009 figure of INR
52,601 (USD 1,156). Thus:
the economic cost of a death is estimated to be: INR 3,682,070 (USD 80,972)
the economic cost of a serious injury is estimated to be: INR 920,517 (USD 20,243).
6.1.7 Discount rate

To calculate Net Present Costs and Benefits, a discount rate of 4% was used.
6.2
Investment Plan
Applying the iRAP methodology and supporting data, three alternate investment plans have been generated:
Plan 1 is based on a budget of US$22 million.

Plan 2 is based on a budget of US$14.0 million.
Plan 3 is based on a budget of US$6.7 million.
The three plans are summarised in Table 6.2. Taking Plan 1 as the benchmark, an investment of $US22.0
million has the potential to prevent 5,120 deaths and serious injuries over a 20 year period. This is equates
to a 26% reduction. For each dollar invested in the plan, there would be a saving of 4 dollars in terms of
crash costs avoided (benefit cost ratio, BCR).
Plan 2 shows that by investing about US$14 m, the BCR increases from 4 to 6, but the overall number of
deaths and serious injuries prevented is reduced. Plan 3 demonstrates that positive returns continue to be
available with significantly less investment. It shows that if the budget were decreased to US$6.7 million
3,850 deaths and serious injuries could be prevented with a BCR of 10.
Table 6.2
Overview of investment plan options ($US)

Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Investment (000)
$22,000
$14,000
$6,700
Economic benefit (20 years) (000)
$88,000
$82,000
$66,000
10
89
89
89
66
68
72
Prevented
23
22
18
19,635
19,635
19,635
14,515
14,885
15,785
Prevented
5,120
4,750
3,850
Reduction
26%
24%
20%
$4,200
$2,900
$1,700
Benefit cost ratio

Deaths (per year)
Deaths and serious injuries (20 years)
Cost per death and serious injury prevented

Notes for tables above
1 lakh = 100,000
1 USD = 45.34 INR
Numbers might not add due to rounding
The countermeasures that have been recommended for installation in Plan 1 are summarised below in Table
6.3. A summary of countermeasures identified in Plans 2 and 3 are provided in Appendix 2.
Table 6.3
Recommended countermeasures in Plan 1 (US$)

Length /
sites
KSI
Saved
Economic
Benefit
(000)
Cost
(000)
Cost per
KSI
saved
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Roadside Safety - Barriers
110 km
1650
$28,000
$6,800
$4,100
Shoulder widening
50 km
1190
$20,000
$400
$300
55
Intersection - grade separation
6 sites
1140
$20,000
$11,000
$9,800
Intersection - right turn lanes (unsignalised)
50 sites
360
$6,300
$700
$1,200
Intersection - delineation
40 sites
270
$4,700
$900
$1,100
Pedestrian Footpath
20 km
200
$3,500
$800
$3,900
Delineation
10 km
130
$2,300
$500
$1,300
Bicycle Facilities
20 km
90
$1,500
$100
$1,500
11
Regulate roadside commercial activity
3 km
30
$600
$0
$10
1794
Parking improvements
2 km
30
$500
$20
$400
25
Intersection - right turn lanes (signalised)
1 sites
10
$200
$5
$300
36
Pedestrian Crossing
8 sites
10
$100
$100
$7,100
1 km
$20
$3
$1,400
5120
$88,000
$22,000
$4,200
Countermeasure Type
Road Surface Upgrade

Total
Notes
KSI = killed and serious injuries

Numbers might not add due to rounding
Countermeasures that span across both northbound and southbound carriageways (such as grade separated
intersections and pedestrian overpasses) are reported as 2 sites in this table, with costs and benefits spread
between the two.
6.2.1 Deaths and Serious Injuries Prevented and Countermeasure Locations

The map in Figure 6.2 illustrates where the largest reductions in deaths and serious injuries could occur if
the Safer Roads Investment Plan is implemented. Black sections of road show where more than 14 deaths
and injuries per kilometre could be avoided, while green sections show where no improvement to the roads
are proposed. The map also illustrates the approximate locations of key countermeasures.
Figure 6.2
Number of deaths and serious injuries prevented over 20 years and approximate
locations of proposed countermeasures (Plan 1)
6.2.2 Key Countermeasures

In this section of the report, example images of the locations of where key countermeasures have been
recommended are shown and a brief overview is provided.
Grade separated intersections
Grade separated intersections are currently used to some extent on the road (such as in Samalkha and
across SH-20). One of the features of NH-1 is the very high number of intersections and access points. As a
result of this, one of the proposed countermeasures is additional grade separated intersections along the
route, such as at the location shown in Figure 6.3 below.
These treatments have the potential to
dramatically reduce the risk of intersection related crashes, and help reduce the need for pedestrians to
make risky crossings of the road. It is recommended that this type of intersection be designed in conjunction
with consideration of the need for a greater level of access control to NH-1.
Figure 6.3
Grade separation is proposed for the busy intersection of NH-1 and SH-14
Roadside safety barriers

To help reduce the risk associated with run-off road crashes, it is proposed that roadside safety barriers are
installed along almost the entire route (for example, just 14% of the route has safety barriers in place on the
left side of the road). A benefit of safety barriers is that they may also be used to assist in the management
of access control to the road, which is an issue of concern.
Figure 6.5
Road safety barriers are proposed at locations like this, where non-frangible poles
and trees mean the consequence of running off the road is high
Shoulder widening
In order to reduce the risk of run-off road and head on crashes, and also provide space for vehicles to safely
stop, it is proposed that the road be upgraded to have a sealed shoulder of at least 1m in width throughout.
Figure 6.4
Just over half (51%) of the road has no sealed shoulder in place
Delineation
Lane delineation is generally adequate (86%), although intersections tend to be poorly delineated (such as
the one shown below). To help road users understand the layout of the road, it is recommended that
delineation be improved at numerous locations throughout the road network.
Figure 6.6
Two thirds (66%) of intersections are considered to be poor quality
Figure 6.7
Sections of the road have poor delineation
Deceleration lanes at intersections

It is proposed that deceleration lanes are installed at numerous intersections, such as the one shown below.
These lanes enable vehicles to decelerate and stop to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, without obstructing
through traffic.
Figure 6.8
Deceleration turn lanes are proposed for intersections
Pedestrian facilities
One of the defining features of this road is that pedestrians tend to be present along all parts of it, regardless
of whether the road is passing through rural or urban areas. To cater for pedestrians walking along the road,
pedestrian footpaths are proposed for 15km.
Figure 6.9
Pedestrians walking along the road
Pedestrians also often take risks to cross the roads, as shown below in Figure 6.10. Relatively few standalone pedestrian overpasses have been proposed in this report, partly because it is envisaged that the grade
separated intersections that are proposed should also incorporate good pedestrian provision. As is
discussed in the implementation section of this report, the way in which facilities for pedestrians are
designed and built is especially important if good road safety outcomes are to be realised.
Figure 6.10
Pedestrians crossing the road
One issue of concern relates to marked pedestrian crossings. The inspection identified 31 locations where
marked pedestrian crossings are in place, as is shown in the example below. On a road such as this,
carrying high volumes of traffic in 6 lanes with a speed limit of 90km/h, marked pedestrian crossings are not
considered safe. Risk at these sites is increased by the fact that:
many of the crossings have an unusual offset layout, such that pedestrians would need to walk some
30 metres between crossings on opposing carriageways, often across an intersection
many of the crossings are in very poor condition
it is unclear that the crossings are located on pedestrian crossing desire lines
vehicle operators rarely give way to pedestrians using the crossings.
Figure 6.11
An existing marked pedestrian crossing
It is proposed that, at minimum, the use of these types of crossings is reviewed, with a view to assessing
whether they are suitably located, they are necessary and, if they are necessary, are replaced with a more
suitable alternative, such as a grade-separated overpass.
Roadside commercial activity and parking

Within the urban areas along the route, there often substantial encroachment of roadside commercial
activities onto the road. This results in an increased risk of rear end, side swipe and pedestrians and bicycle
crashes. It also creates congestion. It is proposed that this issue be specifically targeted at commercial
centres along NH-1. It also envisaged that the proposed grade separation of key intersections will also help
to address this issue by essentially creating a short in-town bypass.
Figure 6.12
Encroachment of commercial activity and parking increases risk
A Key Challenge: Safety in Towns on NH-1
One of the key issues that emerged during the assessments and in consultations with the World Bank and
NHAI on this project was safety in the towns on NH-1. Currently the road passes through several areas
where there is significant roadside development, high side friction, large numbers of pedestrian movements
and significant intersections. These locations represent zones of increased risk, especially for vulnerable
road users.
Figure 7.1
Urban sections of NH-1 with pedestrian steps placed over safety barriers (left) and
conflicting local and through traffic movements (right)
In these areas, NH-1 serves conflicting needs. On one hand, it is a road of major national economic and
social importance, carrying high volumes of high speed traffic and freight. On the other hand, it serves an
urban road, providing access for local traffic, which is often slow moving and comprises more vulnerable
vehicles (such as tricycles) and bicyclist. Pedestrian movements along and across the road are numerous.
The high level of activity that occurs in these areas often happens because the road has been there for many
years and it has been the stage for the essential liveability of the area commercial, social, functional and
recreational activity. This is common for linear developments. However, the major upgrades to the road in
recent years have failed to adequately distinguish between the needs of an inter-urban highway and an
3
urban road. As a result, the safety is compromised.
See Department for Transport (2001) for a review of rural road hierarchies.
It is a reality of physics that vulnerable road users risk road users risk dramatically increases when traffic
speeds are greater than 30km/h. In areas where vulnerable road user flows cross other traffic, traffic calming
is generally the most appropriate measure. At locations where speeds are high, this is not possible and more
elaborate crossing infrastructure is needed.
During consultations, it was requested that this report provide standard plans treatment of NH-1 in urban
areas. However, this is not a preferred option for iRAP, as each town area is likely to feature varying
circumstances, such that each town area ought to be considered on its merits. Thus, the recommendations
cited earlier in this report relate to various treatments at various locations.
Nonetheless, there principles that should be applied in considering the town areas on NH-1. In the first
instance, separation of through-traffic and local traffic would be an ideal solution. This approach has been
implemented in Panipat, to the north of the study area, using an in-town bypass (see Figure 7.2 below).
Figure 7.2
The NH-1 Panipat in-town bypass
If this type of treatment is not possible, then drawing on advice of PIARC (2009), the following approaches
should be considered:
where pedestrians and bicyclists share the road, reduction of traffic speeds to below 40km/h through
the use of alterations of the road design (potentially reductions of lanes), revised speed limits and
enforcement
land-use control
widening and repair of narrow and damaged footways
enforcement of laws prohibiting parked cars on footways
removal of unnecessary barriers or street furniture
rehabilitation and review of pedestrian crossings, particularly the provision of overpasses.
Implementation
In interpreting the results of this report, it is important to recognise that iRAP is designed to provide a
network-level assessment of risk and cost-effective countermeasures. For this reason, implementation of the
proposals in this report will ideally include the following steps:
local examination of proposed countermeasures (including a value engineering type workshop

including all relevant stakeholders)
preliminary scheme investigation studies
detailed design and costing, final evaluation and construction.
The detailed results of the project and online software that enabled the iRAP analyses to be undertaken will
be made available to stakeholders for further exploration and use.
8.1
Combining Engineering and Education
Environmental initiatives aside, in order to make NH-1 a Safer Greener Highway, efforts that go beyond
traditional engineering improvements will be necessary. For example, research has demonstrated that it is
crucial to ensure that local communities have the opportunity to both contribute to road designs but also
understand the intended use of various road design features (BRAC, 2009).
This approach may assist in addressing issues that are particular to roads in this region, such as pedestrian
behaviour. Ensuring that pedestrians choose safe crossing points (such as pedestrian overpasses) when
they are available is particularly important. Efforts have been made on NH-1 in Panipat to manage this
through the use of pedestrian fences, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the effectiveness of this is
mixed, with people jumping over fences or, in some cases, stealing them. Innovative approaches may be
needed to address these issues. For example, consideration might be given to the installation of large
barriers that can channel pedestrians to safe crossing points but also mitigate noise. This approach has
been effectively used in Korea (see below).
It is also important the needs of pedestrians are carefully taken account of in the construction of grade
separated intersections. Tiwari (2010) has found that short-term benefits of flyovers often come with longterm costs for pedestrians and bicyclists through reduced space and unreasonable routes.
Figure 8.1
Large barriers can be used to channel pedestrians to safe crossing points and
mitigate noise
8.2
Safe System
In addition to taking a more comprehensive approach to road safety engineering, significant benefits could
be realised through coordinated targeting risk factors for road users (such as speeding, seat belt wearing
and alcohol) and vehicles. This would be consistent with taking a Safe System approach to the programme.
The Road Safety Toolkit (toolkit.irap.org) and United Nations Road Safety Collaboration Good Practice
Manuals (WHO, 2009) provide further information on this issue. It is recommended that the World Bank
Global Road Safety Facility and National Highway Authority of India pursue these complementary
approaches as part of efforts to make NH-1 a Safer Greener Highway.
8.3
Speed Management
The issue of speed management is particularly important in road safety. Traffic speeds also have a
significant bearing on the iRAP Star Ratings. As such, it warrants special attention in this report.
The risk of death or serious injury is minimised in any crash, where:
vulnerable road users (e.g. motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians) are physically separated from
cars and heavier vehicles, or traffic speeds are 40km/h or less
opposing traffic is physically separated and roadside hazards are well managed
traffic speeds are 70km/h or less for occupants of cars on roads where opposing traffic is not
physically separated or roadside hazards exist.
An issue that has emerged during iRAPs assessments in many countries is the discrepancy between
permitted (posted) speeds and the speeds at which vehicles actually travel. In some locations posted speed
limits are set at very low speeds, and are unlikely to be complied with without continuous enforcement or
robust traffic calming measures.
The Star Ratings presented in this report are based on the posted speed limits of the inspected roads. They
implicitly assume that traffic operates at that speed. The iRAP model may therefore underestimate the
casualties and the associated countermeasure benefits on roads where typical speeds are in excess of the
posted speed limit.
Moreover, worthwhile traffic calming countermeasures may not be triggered, even
though they may offer good investment returns.

In the iRAP results, roads with very low posted speed limits may achieve a relatively high Star Rating (4 or 5star), even though the engineering features may be of a lower standard and/or the road environment does
not support the speed limit (for example, a lack of traffic calming).
It is possible to perform the iRAP analyses using speed estimates or inspection data in order to ensure that
Star Rating results reflect the speeds actually travelled and the most appropriate countermeasures are
triggered. This may be an important future piece of work in India. Once the broad shape of the investment
plan has been agreed, it is necessary for travelled speed profiles to become part of the detailed project
planning and site assessments.
The raw condition data collected as part of the iRAP process will provide a valuable resource to authorities
investigating appropriate speed management initiatives. This may include a more detailed analysis of results
to investigate where there are lower speed limits without accompanying engineering solutions, or may
include a review of the speed limits and facilities in place on roads that rate poorly for pedestrian or bicycle
safety.
The iRAP results therefore should help enable a professional discussion between Police and highway
authorities about their goals and respective roles in enforcement and engineering so each can contribute
best to ensuring safe speeds. It is for Indias stakeholders to decide if and when a national debate which
educates the public about the importance of speed limits should occur. Clearly such a debate is likely to
make more sense if launched alongside a major programme of safety engineering improvements with
emphasis on safe driving, safe vehicles and safe roads.
8.4
Data
A key challenge in this project was securing reliable traffic, crash and countermeasure cost data. As part of
the implementation process, traffic volume and crash data collection for a before-and-after evaluation of the
improvements that will demonstrate their success and enable a second-phase improvement programme for
the next investment period to be developed based on documented local experience. The recently released
Good Practice Manual (2010) on data provides guidance on this issue.
Acknowledgements
This project has benefited from the support of numerous organisations, including:
World Bank Global Road Safety Facility and World Bank India Office
FIA Foundation
National Highways Authority of India
Federation of Indian Automobile Associations
Indian Road Survey and Management.
10
References
Ambala Police (2010) Fatalities Database. http://ambalapolice.org/fatal_accidents/index.php (accessed

January 2010).
BRAC (2005) Road Safety Public Awareness Campaign On Dhaka-Sylhet Highway Volume 1. Report for the
Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Ministry of Communications RRMP-III, Roads and
Highways Department.
iRAP (2009) Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology. http://irap.org/library.aspx.
iRAP (2009) Star Rating Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology. http://irap.org/library.aspx.
iRAP, gTKP, GRSF, ARRB Group (2010) Road Safety Toolkit. www.irap.org/toolkit.
Jahangirpuri Police Station (2009) Accident Data for the year 2009-2009 on NH-1. Information provided to
the National Highways Authority of India Sonepat Project Director.
L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Limited (2009) Traffic Report. Report for L&T Panipat Elevated Corridor
Limited.
McMahon, K. and Dahdah, S. (2008) The True Cost of Road Crashes: Valuing life and the cost of a serious
injury. http://irap.org/library.aspx.
Mohan, D., Tsimhoni, O., Sivak, M. and Flannagan, M. (2009) Road Safety in India: Challenges and
Opportunities. Report No. UMTRI-2009-1. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
National Crime Records Bureau (2009) Accidental Accidents in India. http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2008/accidentaldeaths-08.pdf (accessed 11 March 2010).
Padmanaban, J., Rajaraman, R. and Stadter, G. (2009) Analysis of Heavy Truck Accidents on NH45 and
the Urgent Need for In-depth Truck Accident Data Collection on National Highways. SAE International.
PIARC (2009) Catalogue of Design Safety Problems and Potential Countermeasures. http://www.ncpiarc.si/dokumenti%5CTC_reports%5C2009R07-NewRelease-E.pdf
Road Safety Foundation (2009) EuroRAP 2009 Results: Measuring and mapping the safety of Britains
motorways and A roads.
Smith, P. (2010) India: still incredible. World Highways, January/February 2010.
World Health Organisation (2010) United Nations Road Safety Collaboration Good Practice Manuals.
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/en/.
Ministry of Finance, Investment Commission (2004) Committee on Infrastructure. India.
Appendix 1 Countermeasure Costs

The table below lists countermeasure costs for urban areas in Rupees. Costs used for rural areas are
typically up to 25% less expensive than urban costs.
Countermeasure
Service
Life
Unit of Cost
Cost - Urban Medium
Improve delineation
lane km
250,000
Bicycle lane (on-road)
20
per km (serving both directions)
1,900,000
Bicycle lane (off-road)
20
6,900,000
Motorcycle lane (painted logos only on-road)
3,700,000
Motorcycle lane (construct on-road)
20
6,900,000
Motorcycle lane (segregated)
20
13,800,000
Horizontal realignment
20
lane km
23,200,000
Improve curve delineation
per carriageway km
333,000
Lane widening (up to 0.5m)
10
lane km
6,800,000
Lane widening (>0.5m)
10
lane km
17,200,000
Right turn lane (unsignalised 3 leg)
10
intersection
1,200,000
Right turn lane (unsignalised 4 leg)
10
intersection
3,500,000
Delineation and signing (intersection)
intersection
667,000
Right turn provision at existing signalised site (3-leg)
10
intersection
1,200,000
Right turn provision at existing signalised site (4-leg)
10
intersection
2,100,000
Signalise intersection (3-leg)
20
intersection
2,300,000
Signalise intersection (4-leg)
20
intersection
3,200,000
Grade separation
50
intersection
120,000,000
Rail crossing upgrade
20
intersection
7,300,000
Roundabout
20
intersection
4,000,000
Central hatching
10
257,000
Rumble strip / flexi-post
10
441,000
Central turning lane full length
10
11,000,000
Central median barrier (no duplication)
10
7,300,000
Duplication with median barrier
20
per carriageway km
49,000,000
Duplicate - <1m median
20
per carriageway km
49,000,000
Duplicate - 1-5 m median
20
per carriageway km
49,000,000
Duplicate - 5-10m median
20
per carriageway km
58,800,000
Duplicate - 10-20m median
20
per carriageway km
73,500,000
Duplicate - >20m median
20
per carriageway km
88,200,000
Service Road
20
41,700,000
Additional lane
20
65,100,000
Implement one way network
20
per carriageway km
23,400,000
Upgrade existing pedestrian facilities
10
unit
240,000
Refuge Island
10
unit
240,000
Unsignalised crossing
10
unit
240,000
Signalised crossing
20
unit
960,000
Countermeasure
Service
Life
Unit of Cost
Cost - Urban Medium
Grade separated pedestrian facility
50
unit
40,000,000
Road surface improvement
10
lane km
2,900,000
Road resurface
10
lane km
554,000
Clear roadside hazards (trees, poles, structures) - Left
20
per linear km
2,800,000
Clear roadside hazards (trees, poles, structures) - Right
20
per linear km
2,800,000
Sideslope improvement - Left
20
per linear km
2,500,000
Sideslope improvement - Right
20
per linear km
2,500,000
Roadside barriers - Left
20
per linear km
4,400,000
Roadside barriers - Right
20
per linear km
4,400,000
Shoulder sealing (<1m) *
20
per carriageway km
400,000
Shoulder sealing (>1m) *
20
per carriageway km
400,000
Unsealed shoulder (<1m)
10
per carriageway km
685,000
Unsealed shoulder (>1m)
10
per carriageway km
1,400,000
10
400,000
Restrict/combine direct access points
10
29,000
10
6,000
Footpath provision (adjacent to road)
20
4,600,000
Footpath provision (separated from road)
20
6,900,000
Vertical realignment (minor)
20
lane km
2,300,000
Vertical realignment (major)
20
lane km
17,300,000
Overtaking lane
20
per linear km
57,600,000
Median Crossing Upgrade
10
intersection
65,100,000
Clear roadside hazards (bike lane)
20
1,200,000
Sideslope improvement (bike lane)
20
2,500,000
Roadside barriers (bike lane)
20
2,500,000
Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane)
20
4,400,000
Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane)
20
2,800,000
Roadside barriers (seg MC lane)
20
2,500,000
Median Barrier (seg MC lane)
10
4,400,000
Appendix 2 Summary Safer Roads Investment Plans 2 and 3

The tables below summarise the countermeasures proposed in the Plan 2, which requires a US$14 million
investment, and Plan 3, which requires a $US6.7 million investment.
Safer Roads Investment Plan 2 (US$)
Length /
sites
KSI
Saved
Economic
Benefit
(000)
Cost
(000)
Cost per
KSI
saved
100 km
1610
$28,000
$6,300
$3,900
Clearing sealed shoulders
50 km
1190
$20,000
$400
$300
55
Intersection - grade separation
2 sites
680
$12,000
$4,100
$6,000
40 sites
460
$8,000
$1,000
$1,300
30 sites
330
$5,700
$700
$700
Pedestrian Footpath
20 km
190
$3,300
$600
$3,300
Delineation
10 km
120
$2,100
$400
$1,000
Bicycle Facilities
20 km
90
$1,500
$100
$1,500
12
3 km
30
$600
$0
$10
1794
2 km
30
$500
$20
$400
25
1 sites
10
$200
$5
$300
36
Pedestrian Crossing
2 sites
$40
$20
$4,700
1 km
$20
$3
$1,400
4750
$82,000
$14,000
$2,900
Length /
sites
KSI
Saved
Economic
Benefit
(000)
Cost
(000)
Cost per
KSI
saved
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
70 km
1290
$22,000
$4,000
$3,100
Shoulder widening
50 km
1190
$20,000
$400
$300
55
40 sites
600
$10,000
$1,100
$1,000
10
20 sites
350
$6,000
$500
$400
13
Pedestrian Footpath
8 km
140
$2,400
$300
$2,200
Delineation
9 km
120
$2,000
$300
$900
Bicycle Facilities
10 km
90
$1,500
$100
$1,300
13
3 km
30
$600
$0
$10
1794
2 km
30
$500
$20
$400
25
1 site
10
$200
$5
$300
36
1 km
$20
$3
$1,400
3850
$66,000
$6,700
$1,700
10
Countermeasure Type

Total
Benefit
Cost
Ratio
Safer Roads Investment Plan 3 (US$)

Countermeasure Type
Total

Safer-Greener Highway Pilot Project

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Safer-Greener Highway Pilot Project

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 0

For more information

International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2010

reducing risk at intersections

providing facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Economic benefit (20 years) (000)

Benefit cost ratio

Deaths and serious injuries (20 years)

Cost per death and serious injury prevented

local examination of proposed iRAP countermeasures

preliminary scheme investigation studies

detailed design and costing, final evaluation and construction.

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 3

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 4

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 2

National Highway 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8

On-Road Inspection and Rating ............................................................................................................... 10

Road Condition ......................................................................................................................................... 12

Star Ratings .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Safer Roads Investment Plan .................................................................................................................. 17

A Key Challenge: Safety in Towns on NH-1 ............................................................................................ 35

Appendix 1 Countermeasure Costs .............................................................................................................. 42

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 5

Star Rating Roads for Safety: The iRAP Methodology.

Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology.

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 6

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 7

The following upgrades have occurred on NH-1 recently:

Km 8 (Wazirabad Bridge) to Km 16: divided 8-lane completed.

Km 16 to Km 29 (Delhi-Haryana Border): widening to divided 8-lane under construction (likely

Km 29 to 86 divided: 6-lane completed.

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 8

Jallandhar-Amritsar-Wagha: widening from 2-lanes to divided 4-lanes under construction

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 9

On-Road Inspection and Rating

Use of three high-resolution digital cameras (1280 x 960 pixels).

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 10

The digital images and georeference

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 12

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 13

vehicle occupants, the majority (60%) of the road is 4-star

motorcyclists, almost half (49%) is 3-star

bicyclists, the majority (28%) is 1 or 2-star

pedestrians, the road is almost entirely (93%) is 1 or 2-star.

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 14

Road Protection Scores for vehicle occupants (northbound)

Road Protection Scores for motorcyclists (northbound)

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 15

Road Protection Scores for pedestrians (northbound)

Road Protection Scores for bicyclists (northbound)

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 16

Safer Roads Investment Plan

6.1.1 Traffic volumes

Safer-Greener Highways Pilot | 17

Estimated traffic volume profile for NH-1 (29.3 km to 86.0 km)

Delhi, 15 June 2009.

6.1.2 Motorcycle traffic volumes

6.1.3 Number of deaths and serious injuries

6.1.4 Road deaths by road user type

Proportion of road deaths by road user type

Road user type

6.1.5 Countermeasure costs

6.1.6 Economic cost of a death and serious injury