Road Infrastructure Safety Management
13.90
2014
TML led the ex-post evaluation of Directive 2008/96/EC, assessing its impact on road safety and analysing areas for improvement of road infrastructure. The study resulted in recommendations for a mandatory extension to all motorways and more focus on vulnerable road users.
Directive 2008/96/EC (on road infrastructure safety management) proposes management procedures to ensure that the network is safe. The directive is compulsorily applied to the trans-European road network, but member states can voluntarily extend its scope.
Five years after its introduction, the Commission wants an independent and objective assessment of the state of implementation of the directive and its impact on road safety. In the light of technological developments, possible changes should also be considered. The specific objectives of the study are:
The guideline has certainly changed the way we think about dealing with road safety management. The directive has ensured that Road Safety Infrastructure Management (RISM) procedures are now commonly used in all Member States and are based on a minimum set of mandatory rules for managing TEN-T roads. In many cases, this has ensured that the procedures are also applied to non-TEN-T roads. The directive also provides a common language for implementing road infrastructure safety management, which relies on a harmonised legal framework. At national level, the directive has provided a normative and operational process that would not have happened on such a large scale without European intervention.
The main limitation of this directive relates to its scope, as this piece of EU legislation only applies to the TEN-T road network and not to non-TEN-T roads. The extension option to non-TEN-T roads was left to the discretion of the Member States and this was done, to a greater or lesser extent, by most Member States.
Based on an analysis of data on accident location and the different road users involved, data on the TEN-T network, stakeholder input, and information from the ex-post evaluation, we further developed the eight most promising themes. These include the extension to other roads, a greater focus on vulnerable road users, the measurement of road safety performance and the possibility of linking it with certification, information provision to citizens and road users, information exchange between professionals, the obligation to accept road safety auditor certificates from other member states, better integration of ITS systems, and the clarification of the definitions of different procedures.
The most promising option is a mandatory extension to all motorways. This would improve road safety and ensure more consistency for road users. At the same time, this option avoids the high costs associated with a possible extension to all roads. Given that it does not seem feasible to extend the directive to all road types, it makes more sense to focus on motorcyclists. This could be fitted into a series of workshops/seminars so that there is also more exchange of information. Before setting up new workshops, a thorough analysis of existing initiatives and available information should be done. Measuring road safety performance could encourage decision-makers, but is probably better not linked to certification. Indeed, there is very little support for this. Moreover, this also requires a common methodology that is not in line with the spirit of the current directive. The directive could put more emphasis on the role road infrastructure has in the deployment of ITS applications. Linked to this is the creation of standards for certain road infrastructure elements or the mandatory use of certain elements. This could help improve road safety and deserves more research.
TML was project leader. In the ex-post evaluation, we assessed the safety impact of the directive. Moreover, we were responsible for the preliminary analysis of possible areas for improvement regarding road safety and, more specifically, road infrastructure safety.
Directive 2008/96/EC (on road infrastructure safety management) proposes management procedures to ensure that the network is safe. The directive is compulsorily applied to the trans-European road network, but member states can voluntarily extend its scope.
Five years after its introduction, the Commission wants an independent and objective assessment of the state of implementation of the directive and its impact on road safety. In the light of technological developments, possible changes should also be considered. The specific objectives of the study are:
- To carry out an ex-post evaluation of the implementation of Directive 2008/96/EC. What were the main effects on road safety? What steps were taken to implement the directive? What is the relevance of the directive?
- An initial analysis of potential areas for improvement with regard to road safety and road infrastructure safety in particular.
- Important elements in the study were the stakeholder survey and the organisation of a stakeholder conference.
The guideline has certainly changed the way we think about dealing with road safety management. The directive has ensured that Road Safety Infrastructure Management (RISM) procedures are now commonly used in all Member States and are based on a minimum set of mandatory rules for managing TEN-T roads. In many cases, this has ensured that the procedures are also applied to non-TEN-T roads. The directive also provides a common language for implementing road infrastructure safety management, which relies on a harmonised legal framework. At national level, the directive has provided a normative and operational process that would not have happened on such a large scale without European intervention.
The main limitation of this directive relates to its scope, as this piece of EU legislation only applies to the TEN-T road network and not to non-TEN-T roads. The extension option to non-TEN-T roads was left to the discretion of the Member States and this was done, to a greater or lesser extent, by most Member States.
Based on an analysis of data on accident location and the different road users involved, data on the TEN-T network, stakeholder input, and information from the ex-post evaluation, we further developed the eight most promising themes. These include the extension to other roads, a greater focus on vulnerable road users, the measurement of road safety performance and the possibility of linking it with certification, information provision to citizens and road users, information exchange between professionals, the obligation to accept road safety auditor certificates from other member states, better integration of ITS systems, and the clarification of the definitions of different procedures.
The most promising option is a mandatory extension to all motorways. This would improve road safety and ensure more consistency for road users. At the same time, this option avoids the high costs associated with a possible extension to all roads. Given that it does not seem feasible to extend the directive to all road types, it makes more sense to focus on motorcyclists. This could be fitted into a series of workshops/seminars so that there is also more exchange of information. Before setting up new workshops, a thorough analysis of existing initiatives and available information should be done. Measuring road safety performance could encourage decision-makers, but is probably better not linked to certification. Indeed, there is very little support for this. Moreover, this also requires a common methodology that is not in line with the spirit of the current directive. The directive could put more emphasis on the role road infrastructure has in the deployment of ITS applications. Linked to this is the creation of standards for certain road infrastructure elements or the mandatory use of certain elements. This could help improve road safety and deserves more research.
TML was project leader. In the ex-post evaluation, we assessed the safety impact of the directive. Moreover, we were responsible for the preliminary analysis of possible areas for improvement regarding road safety and, more specifically, road infrastructure safety.
