Nordic Road and Transport Research 2-2014

ROAD AND TR ANSPORT RESE ARCH | NO.2 2014

W W W.NORDICROADS.COM

DRIVE C2X Assessed Impacts of Cooperative Systems – Positive Impact on Driver Behavior and Traffic Safety Norway’s Path to Sustainable Transport Bestfact – Best Practice Factory for Freight Transport

Join our transition to online news only.

Read more articles and subscribe to our newsletter at www.nordicroads.com This is the last paper issue of the magazine.

Thanks to the substantial purchase tax levied on new passenger cars, the Norwegian government has a quite powerful climate policy instrument at its hand. Continued application of this instrument may halve the greenhouse gas emissions from Norwegian cars within two or three decades.

O

n account of the higher energy efficiency of electric motors compared to internal combustion engines, the total energy consumption of the Norwegian car fleet may decrease considerably, to the profit of society in general and consumers in particular. Six per cent of Norway’s hydropower output would be sufficient to operate the entire passenger car fleet, if completely electrified.

Public transport has an indispensable role to play in the daily life of urban citizens, but a fairly modest potential for greenhouse gas abatement.

Even very ambitious packages combining reduced fares with improved level-of-service fail to achieve more than a few percentage

Illustration:TØI Photo: Shutterstock

Norway’s Path to Sustainable Transport

Six per cent of Norway’s hydropower output would be sufficient to operate the entire passenger car fleet, if completely electrified.

points’ reduction in CO2 emissions from travel.

Improving the road network so as to allow for substantially higher speed will increase emission in the short as well as in the long run.

Cars become more competitive, and as they speed, per kilometre emissions go up.

Earmarking the environmental tax will enhance its public acceptability, and so will increased faith in the fairness and effectiveness of the tax measure.

Efficient corridors for freight trains may substantially enhance the competitive edge and market share of the rail mode. As transports are transferred from road to rail, greenhouse gas emissions are cut to a fraction.

It appears doubtful whether the mecha-

nisms for achieving climate policy goals carry sufficient weight when meeting with conflicting goals and considerations. A proposal to introduce a climate change act, to enforce and monitor greenhouse gas abatement policies, is pending in the Norwegian Parliament.

Report: Norway’s path to sustainable transport.

TØI Report 1321/2014. Authors: Lasse Fridstrøm and Knut H. Alfsen. Report in Norwegian with summary in English. www.bit.ly/1321-2014

CONTACT Lasse Fridstrøm lef@toi.no TØI Norway

Nordic Continues Online – Sign Up for Our Newsletter This issue of Nordic Road and Transport Research is the last paper issue of the magazine.

But don’t worry! Our articles on road and transport research will keep on coming on our website.

Visit the redesigned and improved www.nordicroads.com.

T

o make sure you don’t miss out on anything from us, feel free to subscribe to our newsletter that will be sent out four times per year. Subscribe with our online form at www.nordicroads.com/subscribe 2 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014

Extra articles on our website with this issue:

“Better Traffic Flow with Adaptable Speed Bumps”

“Greater Risk for Motorcyclists in Intersections and on Small Roads”

“Coolant Best for Engine Heating”

www.nordicroads.com

Section Cameras Reduce Accidents An evaluation of automatic section speed cameras at 14 road sections in Norway found a reduction of the number of injury crashes by between 12 and 22 per cent and a reduction of the number of killed or severely injured road users by between 49 and 54 per cent. ach section control site consists of a stretch or road between two speed cameras (four speed cameras at sites with bidirectional section control), both of which take pictures of all passing vehicles in one direction with automatic license plate recognition.

Average speed is calculated from the times at which the first and second camera is passed.

Drivers of vehicles with an average speed above the speed limit may be prosecuted.

The study has controlled for trend, volumes, speed limit changes at some of the sites and speed cameras at some of the sites in the before period. Regression to the mean is controlled for by using the empirical Bayes method which takes into account that exceptionally high crash numbers in the before period usually are associated with a reduction of the number of crashes in the after period, even without any effective safety measure.

Photo: TØI

E

Eight of the section control sites are in tunnels. The results indicate that the crash reductions in tunnels are at least of the same magnitude as on open roads.

Eight of the section control sites are in tunnels. The results indicate that the crash reductions in tunnels are at least of the same magnitude as on open roads.

Most tunnel sites have section control in only one direction. These are for the most part steep downhill sections in subsea tunnels. At such sites the number of injury crashes may be reduced by up to 25 per cent and the number of killed or severely injured road users may be reduced by up to 59 per cent.

The evaluation is financed by The Norwegian Public Roads Administration.

Report: Evaluation of the crash effects of section control. TØI Report 1339/2014 Author: Alena Høye, Report in Norwegian with summary in English, www.bit.ly/1339-2014

CONTACT Alena Høye alh@toi.no TØI Norway

The Technology Days October 6-10

Photo: Rinspeed.com

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) recently held a conferencenwith the latest news within research and development on issues related to road and transport in Norway. The conference, which was held in Trondheim, gave the attendees the opportunity to discuss and exchange experiences with other professionals working in areas related to road and transport.

I

t was the 11th time the State Road Administration arranged the Technology Days.

The different sessions were open to everyone and were suitable for professionals, students, consultants, contractors and others who wanted to learn more about current issues and how the Public Roads Administration

and collaborators use research and development to solve complex problems.

The Technology Days 2014 was one part of the NPRA‘s 150th anniversary celebration.

The scientific scope and number of conferences was therefore greater than ever this year.

Text: Anne Mari Norheim, NPRA

NORDIC NO. 2 2014 | 3

Kerbs Can Affect Guardrail Function A guardrail is intended to catch a vehicle that is headed in the wrong direction, i.e., off the road, and guide it back onto the road with as little damage to the vehicle as possible, all to reduce the risk of personal injury inside the vehicle. But what happens if a kerb is installed in front of the guardrail?

P

ursuant to European standard EN1317, guardrails are currently subject to compulsory crash testing, and must be CE marked to ensure that they function properly. When the guardrail is later used on a road, it is obviously important that it be installed correctly, in the same configuration in which it was tested. Failure to do so may compromise the function of the guardrail.

Guardrails are not tested with a kerb in front of them.

Do kerbs alter vehicle behaviour?

We wanted to investigate whether having a kerb in front of a guardrail is consistent with proper guardrail function. With a kerb in place, the portion of the vertical guardrail post that can be deformed and curved on impact becomes shorter, so that the guardrail will likely be more rigid than when it was tested. The fear in that case is that the guardrail will not function at all, or that vehicles may hop the guardrail. In addition, the vehicle wheels would bounce up over the kerb, creating a different impact scenario between

guardrail and vehicle than in the approval testing. A third factor to bear in mind is that the kerb could cause the vehicle to start to overturn in the direction of the guardrail before reaching it. This would be particularly destructive for two-wheeled vehicles, i.e., mopeds, bicycles and motorcycles.

Together with the Swedish Transport Administration, which financed the project, VTI and the crash-test course decided to test such an installation. In our view, such installations are improper if we compare them with the test situation as per EN 1317 and in relation to other crash tests involving a guardrail of the EU4 type.

Two tests with kerbs performed We wanted to test the hypothesis that the vehicle is at risk of hopping the guardrail or being negatively affected by the kerb in some other way. We consequently installed a 15cm- high granite kerb roughly 48 cm in front of the traffic side of the guardrail. The guardrail was positioned so that the middle of the rail was 55 cm above the roadway. We drove a Volvo loaded to a weight of 1,500 kg at a 20째 angle, precisely as is customary when testing guardrails in accordance with EN13172:2010. However, there was one deviation: we chose speeds different from those prescribed by EN1317. One normally drives into

Photo: Jan Wen채ll

The guardrail must yield in the event of a collision Most guardrails are based on the principle that the guardrail posts will be deformed and yield from the ground level and up to the transverse rail, so that the railing, cable or pipe profile can form a soft curve and guide

the vehicle back onto the roadway. Each disruption of this system entails a technical risk that reduces the protective capacity of the guardrail.

But what happens if a kerb is installed in front of the guardrail? And why have people begun installing kerbs in front of guardrails?

The most likely reason in urban areas is a desire to guide storm water toward storm drains: the kerbs frame the road and thus guide the water to the storm drains. This may benefit the environment, but has any thought been given to the function of the guardrails in the event of a collision? A desire may also exist to protect guardrails from snowplough damage, as the presence of a kerb will reduce the risk of a snowplough reaching the guardrail.

4 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014

www.nordicroads.com

the guardrail at a speed of 110 km/h, but our assessment was that the risk of a car bouncing over the kerb was greater at a lower speed.

Speeds of 45 and 90 km/h were therefore cho­ sen, and two tests were carried out.

The results were unexpected Research must be open to new and unexpect­ ed results, even outcomes that one would not believe could occur. Our hypothesis was that the car would bounce and behave poorly, per­ haps even going over the guardrail. But our hypothesis was proven wrong. The car’s sus­ pension and pneumatic tyres easily compen­ sated for the movements that occurred as the front wheel went over the kerb, although the wheel and rim did sustain damage. It is also important to note that this is a good research result, even though it is not the one we had expected.

We learned something new, i.e., that cars can drive over a kerb in front of a guardrail without much harm. Certainly, there may still be a degree of risk for two-wheeled vehicles riding over kerbs and overturning in the direc­ tion of the guardrail, particularly as we have not yet tested that scenario.

It is also true that guardrails are not nor­ mally tested with a kerb in front of them, and their function cannot be guaranteed with complete certainty when the installation is non-standard.

Be that as it may, we could not prove with

these two tests that there is any risk inherent in placing a kerb in front of the guardrail, at least not with this particular vehicle, this par­ ticular kerb design and this particular guard­ rail. Perhaps something else may hold true for other combinations.

Certain questions remain We consequently decided, in consultation with the Swedish Transport Administration, not to continue with more tests; we considered that we had learned enough about the case involving the combination of a kerb in front of

The guardrails in the two pictures above are of the same type, but installed in two different ways. Each guardrail has a creased knee on its posts, a knee intended to become deformed under the effects of a collision.

The knee in the left-hand picture is situated above the surface of the traffic island, and is likely still functional.

a guardrail, and that this configuration posed no immediate increased risk of improper function. The project has thus been conclud­ ed. But questions still remain, despite these tests. Examples can be seen in these two pic­ tures below.

Text & photos: Jan Wenäll

CONTACT Jan Wenäll jan.wenall@vti.se VTI Sweden

The knee in the right-hand picture has been cast beneath the surface of the concrete and is concealed by paving setts on the actual traffic island/sidewalk/cycle path behind the kerb.

The type-tested function of the guard­rail is likely disturbed, and the possibility that the kerb may affect the function of the guardrail cannot be ruled out in this case.

NORDIC NO. 1 2014 | 5

Activated In-Vehicle Signage function in the winter tests of the Finnish Test site

The EC co-funded project DRIVE C2X provided evidence that cooperative systems work and demonstrated positive impacts on driver behaviour, ciency and the environment, with high user acceptance.

D

RIVE C2X provided a comprehensive, Europe-wide assessment of cooperative systems through field operational tests. The test results were part of the preparation of the roll-out of cooperative systems in Europe. In DRIVE C2X, more than 750 drivers tested eight safety-related functions of cooperative functions all over Europe. The operational tests took place in seven test sites in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

The tests clearly demonstrated a positive impact of DRIVE C2X. The functions were primarily safety functions, and the impacts, when found, were mostly changes in speed, and its derivatives. Nevertheless, there was clear proof that drivers reacted to information and warning signals provided by the cooperative function by reducing their speed in most cases. No changes in strategic behaviour (route choice, mode choice) were found due to the nature of the functions.

6 | NORDIC NO. 2 2014

To provide some examples of the results, the In-Vehicle Signage (IVS) function had indeed positive impacts on driver behaviour, especially, in areas where special attention should be paid on vulnerable road users as IVS child sign and IVS ‘pedestrian crossing ahead’ sign had impact of reducing speed in their relevance area. In addition, there were some indications of smoother driving with the stop sign.

The main safety results showed that the functions affected traffic safety in a positive way by preventing fatalities and injuries. The IVS on speed limit and Weather Warning (WW) showed most potential to decrease fatalities. Assuming a 100% penetration rate, IVS speed limit that provides continuous information would reduce on average 23% in fatalities and 13% in injuries. WW would lead to 6% less fatalities and 5% less injuries.

From an efficiency perspective, functions such as the IVS on speed limit and Green Light Optimized Speed Advisory (GLOSA) indicated significant effects for both the environment and traffic efficiency.

User acceptance was high with nine out of ten test users welcoming the cooperative systems. Users indicated that they are willing to use function if it available in the vehicle. The qualitative mobility assessment revealed positive impacts. Specifically, journey quality is

Photo: VTT

DRIVE C2X Assessed the Impacts of Cooperative Systems

improved in terms of decreased user uncertainty and stress, and feeling of safety and travel comfort.

As conclusion, the DRIVE C2X project investigated Day-one cooperative functions which are primarily focused on improving road safety. The analysis revealed that the safety results are promising for the DRIVE C2X functions individually. When the cooperative systems are brought to the market, they will be offered in bundles of systems on vehicles, i.e. multiple systems in a package.

The safety impacts of the bundles targeting different situations will be larger than the impacts of the individual systems.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013) under grant agreement n° 270410, DRIVE C2X. Text: Satu Innamaa For more information, visit www.drive-c2x.eu or see the Press release 16 July 2014 (www.bit.ly/drive-c2x).

Coordinator: Matthias Schulze, Daimler AG

CONTACT Satu Innamaa VTT, Finland

www.nordicroads.com

Best Practice Factory for Freight Transport Photo: TTS Liftec Oy

BESTFACT project collects, develops, evaluates and circulates good ideas for city logistics, green logistics and co-modality as well as e-freight. Best practice descriptions (95 so far) are freely available from project website.

B

ESTFACT develops, disseminates and enhances best practices and innovations in freight transport that contribute to competitiveness and environmental impact. The core of the BESTFACT concept is to extend existing best practice methodologies towards implementation strategies within an industrial environment.

Best practice in BESTFACT is considered as existing approach or solution (industrial business cases, measures, administrative procedures, research results) providing a solution for a relevant problem or challenge in freight transport. Best practice considered for BESTFACT is characterised by the following attributes: • Innovative and feasible approach beyond the common practice • Business and policy objectives • Considerable and measurable positive effects on strategic business and policy targets • Transferable to other companies, initiatives or contexts.

After the second year of the project, we have achieved a total of 95 inventory cases and 30 in-depth reviews of Best Practices. These provide a short overview of solutions and implementation status. QIS can be downloaded from the BESTFACT webpage at www.bestfact.net.

Evaluation is two-phase. First evaluation is targeted to case selection. The second is to

Translifter Cassette system is one of the best practices described in the project.

find out the impacts. For the second phase VTT has developed an evaluation method including impact analysis and transferability.

The guideline for the methodology has been, while being comprehensive, to keep it relatively easy to understand and transparent.

The evaluation shows where the case is most usable or appropriate. Evaluation results show the main impacts on strategic targets and topics where the case have positive or unfavourable impacts. Transferability is assessed based on three criteria: innovation, maturity and implementation.

Most of the cases are focused on activities occurring at the business level. One of the core BESTFACT objectives is to better understand the transfer of a solution from one operator to another. Assessment is backed with quantitative CBA figures where applicable.

The BESTFACT conference in 2014 hosted the first Sustainability Award for Freight Transport & Logistics ceremony. Winner of the Urban Freight was case DISTRIPOLIS (Geodis) for their urban consolidation centres and battery-electric vehicles. Winner of Green Logistics & Co-modality was case VIKING Train, linking the Baltic and Black Seas to the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. Winner of

eFreight was case KoKoBahn, an electric data exchange platform between seaports, intraport actors and hinterland railways. The BESTFACT consortium praised the three award winners for their high impact, making them unique in Europe today.

The BESTFACT consortium includes 18 partners made up of European research institutes, universities, international associations and industry partners, financed by the European 7th RTD Framework. Other actions of the project are implementation support actions, cluster workshops, conferences, innovative policy schemes, best practice handbook and knowledge platform.

Text: Antti Permala

CONTACT Antti Permala antti.permala@vtt.fi VTT, Finland

NORDIC NO. 2 2014 | 7

NORDIC ROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH

A joint publication with the latest research findings of public road and transport research organisations in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

SWEDEN

NORWAY

ICELAND

SWEDISH NATIONAL ROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VTI) VTI is an independent and internationally prominent research institute in the transport sector. Its principal task is to conduct research and development relating to infrastructure, traffic and transport and its operations include all modes of transport. VTI has a total of some 200 employees. VTI’s head office is in Linköping, with branch offices in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Borlänge and Lund.

NORWEGIAN PUBLIC ROADS ADMINISTRATION (NPRA) The Norwegian Public Roads Administration is one of the administrative agencies under the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Norway. NPRA is responsible for the development and management of public roads and road traffic, as well as the Vehicle Department. This responsibility includes research and development of all areas related to road transport and the implementation of R&D results.

THE ICELANDIC ROAD AND COASTAL ADMINISTRATION (IRCA) The IRCA’s mission is to provide the Icelandic society with a road system in accordance with its needs and to provide a service with the aim of smooth and safe traffic on land and on sea. The number of employees is about 300. Applied research and development and to some extent also basic research concerning road construction, maintenance, traffic and safety is performed or directed by the IRCA. Development division is responsible for road research in Iceland.

FINLAND TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND (VTT) VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is a contract research organisation with a staff of 2,800. In this joint publication, the VTT expertise areas cover research and develop-ment of transportation, logistics and road structures. The work is carried out in five research groups employing a staff of 60.

INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS (TØI) The Institute of Transport Economics is the national institution for transport research and development in Norway. The main objectives of the Institute are to carry out applied research and promote the application and use of results through consultative assistance to public authorities, the transport industry and others. TØI is an independent research foundation employing about one hundred persons.

Editorial Notes Nordic Road & Transport Research is a joint publication of public road and transport research organisations in the Nordic countries Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The main objective of the publication is to disseminate re­search results and news from the institutions, especially to researchers and decision makers. Each institution is responsible for the selection and ­presentation of the material from its own scope of activities.

Reproduction and quotation of the texts are allow­ed if reference is made to the author and source. However, legislation regulates and restricts the right to reproduce the illustrations. Please contact the respective publishing institution for information. Advertising is not accepted.

If you have questions about the contents of the publication, please write to the author or to the respective publish­ing organisation.

Requests and notification of address changes are handled by the Editor-in-chief at VTI. Graphic design: Forma Viva, Linköping, Sweden Cover: Thinkstock Issue: 3.200 ISSN: 1101-517 9

Contact – editorial board VTI, SWEDEN Karin Andersson E-mail: nordic@vti.se www.vti.se

VTT, FINLAND Kari Mäkelä E-mail: kari.makela@vtt.fi www.vtt.fi

IRCA, ICELAND G. Petúr Matthiasson E-mail: gpm@vegagerdin.is www.vegagerdin.is

NPRA, NORWAY Anne Mari Norheim (NPRA) E-mail: anne.norheim@vegvesen.no www.vegvesen.no

TØI, NORWAY Harald Aas (TØI) E-mail: ha@toi.no www.toi.no