Andhra Pradesh Technical Report

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 1
About iRAP
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) is a registered charity 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 e-
newsletter, by sending a message to icanhelp@irap.org.
International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2011

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. Charity number 1140357.
Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS.

Version History
Date Version Update
18 October 11 1 First draft preliminary results
Incorporated comments from World Bank Global Road Safety Facility and New Delhi
26 November 11 2
office, including varied investment plan options and investment profiles over time.
Updated to include comments from APRDC during review of results in New Delhi in
18 February 2011 3
January 2011.

Executive Summary
Worldwide, some 1.3 million people are killed in road crashes each year. In a reflection of the significant
social and economic impact of road crashes, the United Nations has declared that 2011-2020 will be the
Decade of Action for Road Safety. It is expected that during the decade, significant efforts will be made to
improve road infrastructure, road user behaviour and vehicle safety.
Among the States of India, Andhra Pradesh experiences the largest number of road deaths each year
(Mohan et al, 2009). In 2009, 14,792 people were reportedly killed and a further 59,506 were injured (State
Crime Records Bureau, 2009). This equates to a rate of 19 deaths per 100,000 population, which is
significantly higher than the best performing jurisdictions around the world. With economic activity in Andhra
Pradesh growing at around 10% per annum, there is a very serious risk that road trauma will increase unless
commensurate road safety efforts are made.
In 2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) took the decision to implement a Road Safety Action
Plan; establish an Empowered Committee to oversee the Plan and consisting of Secretaries and Heads of a
number of departments; and establish a Road Safety Cell within the office of the Transport Commissioner to
support the implementation of the Plan. As part of the Plan, the GoAP identified three demonstration
corridors for road safety improvements, as follows:
1. The Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4) 125km.
2. The Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31) 259km.
3. The Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38) 48km.
These roads represent less than 1% of the total State Highways in Andhra Pradesh, but account for
approximately 4% of the States road deaths.
In 2010, iRAP was invited by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) to assist the Andhra
Pradesh Road Development Corporation (RDC) in assessing the demonstration corridors and identifying
remedial measures. iRAPs vision is a world free of high-risk roads, and this helped shape the approach
taken in this project. Within the Road Safety Action Plan a small budget of USD$11.0 million was allocated,
and a programme of countermeasures was developed to maximise reductions in deaths and serious injuries.
iRAP Road Protection Scores and Star Ratings based on detailed inspection and assessment of 50 road
attributes at 100 metre intervals indicate that there are significant opportunities for improvement on the
demonstration corridors. The majority of the roads are rated 1 or 2-stars (out of a possible of 5-stars) for car
occupants, pedestrians, motorcyclists and pedestrians.
The inspections indicate that sections of the roads were built without provision for the capacity and speed of
vehicles which use them today. Many relatively high speed roads pass through densely populated areas.
This is a common challenge; when roads are improved, allowing vehicles to travel at higher speeds, deaths
and injuries increase, unless special steps are taken (Mohan, 2004). Insufficient attention has been given, in
general, to proactive engineering design for the effective separation of fast and slower moving traffic,
protecting hazardous roadsides, limit head-on risk, reducing encroachment, the needs of pedestrians in built
up areas and villages and speed management.

The overall iRAP Safer Roads Investment Plans identified in this project largely focus on:
reducing the likelihood and severity of run-off road and head-on crashes by widening shoulders,
removing roadside hazards and improving delineation
reducing the likelihood and severity of pedestrian crashes by installing crossing facilities and
footpaths.
A series of investment options were generated for each of the three roads, and resultant reductions in deaths
and serious injuries were estimated. An investment of $1.1 million (Option 1) would generate an economic
benefit of $95 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 86:1. This plan would result in a 7% reduction in
deaths and serious injuries on the three corridors. At the other end of the spectrum, an investment of $82
million (Option 5) would generate an economic benefit of $690 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 8:1.
This plan would result in a 49% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the three corridors.
Investment plan options for all three corridors ($US)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Investment (m) 1.1 2.8 6.9 18.6 82.2
Economic benefit (20 years) (m) 95.0 160.1 267.0 430.1 690.8
Benefit cost ratio 86 58 39 23 8
Deaths (per year)
Before countermeasures 370 370 370 370 370
After countermeasures 345 328 299 257 188
Prevented 25 42 71 113 182
Reduction 7% 11% 19% 31% 49%
Deaths and serious injuries (20 years)
Before countermeasures 81,400 81,400 81,400 81,400 81,400
After countermeasures 75,867 72,121 65,880 56,443 41,295
Prevented 5,533 9,279 15,520 24,957 40,105
Reduction 7% 11% 19% 31% 49%
Cost per death and serious injury prevented $199 $300 $446 $744 $2,051
The analysis and results in this report are presented for discussion. It is anticipated that after consultation on
the report has occurred which will ideally include a value engineering type workshop including relevant
stakeholders the results will be amended based on the advice received. As part of this process, 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.
Apart from making recommendations about road safety countermeasures, this report also makes
recommendations that relate to the implementation of iRAP in Andhra Pradesh, including the establishment
of an iRAP project implementation unit within the RDC and application of iRAP assessments and
improvements to the Andhra Pradesh Core Road Network. Such activity projects could potentially be
supported by the World Bank or Asian Development Bank, and would help to build institutional ownership of

road safety and an understanding of how to address the many challenges involved in improving road
infrastructure safety.
Overall, this project has demonstrated that the application of iRAP in Andhra Pradesh is feasible and would
assist in the prevention of deaths and serious injuries.

Acknowledgments
The iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridor project would not have been possible without the direct
support of numerous people and organisations. These include:
Mr Premchand Reddy, Andhra Pradesh Transport Commissioner
Mr Reddy, Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation
Mr Phanindra Prasad, Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation
Mr Said Dahdah, World Bank Global Road Safety Facility
Mr Gopalakrishna Parasuraman, Indian Road Survey and Management.
The project was financially supported by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility.

Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................. 7
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 9
2 Road Network .......................................................................................................................................... 11
3 Road Inspections and Rating ................................................................................................................... 12
4 Road Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 14
5 Star Ratings ............................................................................................................................................. 17
6 Safer Roads Investment Plan .................................................................................................................. 37
7 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 56
8 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 59
9 References ............................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix 1: Countermeasure Costs .......................................................................................................... 62

1 Introduction
Deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes are a major and growing public health epidemic. Each year 1.3
million people die and a further 50 million are injured or permanently disabled in road crashes. Road
crashes are now the leading cause of death for children and young people aged between 15 and 29. The
burden of road crashes is comparable with malaria and tuberculosis and costs 1-3% of the worlds GDP.
In low and middle income countries, road crashes represent a major health concern. More than 85% of the
global death toll and serious injuries occur in developing countries. Whereas road deaths are expected to
fall in high-income countries, they are likely to increase by more than 80% in the rest of the world.
Among the States of India, Andhra Pradesh experiences the largest number of road deaths each year
(Mohan et al, 2009). In 2009, 14,792 people were reportedly killed in road crashes in Andhra Pradesh, and a
further 59,506 were injured (State Crime Records Bureau, 2009). This equates to rate of 19 deaths per
100,000 population, which is significantly higher than the best performing jurisdictions around the world. With
economic activity in Andhra Pradesh growing at around 10% per annum, there is a very serious risk that
road trauma will increase without commensurate road safety efforts.
The International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) has drawn upon the extensive knowledge base of
established Road Assessment Programmes (EuroRAP, AusRAP and usRAP), with the generous support of
the FIA Foundation and World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, to target high-risk roads where large
numbers of people are killed and seriously injured and inspect them to identify where affordable programmes
of safety engineering can reduce death and injury.
In 2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) took the decision to implement a Road Safety Action
Plan, establish an Empowered Committee to oversee the Plan and consisting of Secretaries and Heads of a
number of departments; and establish a Road Safety Cell within the office of the Transport Commissioner to
support the implementation of the Plan. As part of the Plan, the GoAP identified three demonstration
corridors for road safety improvements. The roads are:
a 125km section of the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
a 259km section of the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
a 48km section of the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38).
These roads represent less than 1% of the total State Highways in Andhra Pradesh, but account for
approximately 4% of the States road deaths.
In 2010, iRAP was invited by the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) to assist the Andhra
Pradesh Road Development Corporation (RDC) in assessing the demonstration corridors and identifying
remedial measures. Within the Road Safety Action Plan, a budget of USD$11.0 million was identified for
such improvements.
In this report, the methodology, detailed condition reports, Star Ratings, Safer Roads Investments Plans are
presented. The report also contains discussion on implementation of proposed road safety countermeasures
and a series of recommendations.

1.1 Methodology
iRAP uses globally consistent models to produce motor car 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.
1.2 Results Online

This report provides an overview of the methodology used and 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.iraptools.net. 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: andhra.pradesh
Password: ap1

2 Road Network
The iRAP project focused on three demonstration corridors (one in each region), which were selected by the
GoAP based on advice from the RDC. The roads are:
a 125km section of the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
a 259km section of the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
a 48km section of the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38).
It is noted that these lengths differ slightly to the corridors originally identified, particularly for the Hyderabad
to Karnataka Border Road (as per the Executive Summary). This cha
change
nge was made following advice from
the RDC.
Figure 2.1 The SH4, SH31 and SH38 highways
Anakapalli - Anandapuram
Road (SH38)
Hyderabad to Karnataka
Border Road (SH4)
Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu
Road (SH31)

3 Road Inspections and Rating
Using specially equipped vehicles, software and trained analysts, iRAP inspects and rates roads, focusing
on 50 road attributes relating to the likelihood of a crash and its severity. These attributes include
intersection design, road cross-section and markings, roadside hazards, footpaths and bicycle lanes.
3.1 Road Inspection

The inspections were undertaken by Indian Road Survey and Management (IRSM) in June 2010 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.
Representatives from RDC had the opportunity to participate in the inspections, which were completed over
a period of approximately one week.
Figure 3.1 The Network Survey Vehicle used in the road inspections

3.2 Rating
The digital images and georeference data was rated by the Indian-based IRSM team. 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 3.2 SH4 being viewed and rated using the Hawkeye software
The ratings were subject to quality assurance checks by iRAP officers based in Australia, in accordance with
iRAPs Rating Quality Assurance Guide, prior to any analysis occurring.
3.3 Speed
In this project, posted speed limits were used for speed data collection. However, where there was no clearly
posted speed limited, the following assumptions were made:
80km/h in rural and semi urban
50km/h in urban areas
In any future, larger-scale application of iRAP in Andhra Pradesh, more detailed speed data collection will be
necessary.

4 Road Conditions
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).
Vehicles per day Length (km) % Road condition Length (km) %
1000 - 5000 176.9 km 41 Good 152.5km 35
5001 - 10000 211.1 km 49 Medium 197.4km 46
10001 - 15000 22.2 km 5 Poor 81.1km 19
15001 - 20000 8.8 km 2
20001 - 40000 12.0 km 3 Land Use Left Length (km) %
Undeveloped areas 324.4km 75
Motorcycle percent Length (km) % Development other than residential
29.5km 7
or commercial
11% - 20% 289.1km 67
Residential 42.2km 10
21% - 40% 141.9km 33
Commercial 32.2km 7
Bicycle Flow Length (km) % Not Recorded 0.9km 0

1.8km 0
Not recorded / None 276.8km 64
Low 85.9km 20
Land Use Right Length (km) %
Medium 67.8km 16
Undeveloped areas 305.7km 71
High 0.5km 0
Development other than residential
29.3km 7
or commercial
Pedestrian flow - crossing Road Length (km) %
Residential 45.9km 11
Commercial 28.7km 7
Low 61.9km 14
Not Recorded 20.9km 5
Medium 46.1km 11
0.5km 0
High 2.4km 1
Side friction Length (km) %

Pedestrian flow - along Road Length (km) %
Low 377.8km 88
Medium 40.1km 9
Low 81.1km 19
High 13.1km 3
Medium 126.6km 29
High 64.6km 15 Shoulder Rumble Strips Length (km) %
No 430.6km 100
Area type Length (km) %
Yes 0.4km 0
Rural 340km 79
Semi-Urban 64.3km 15 Pedestrian crossing facilities Sites
Urban 26.7km 6
Unsignalised marked crossing with refuge 24 sites
Unsignalised marked crossing without a
165 sites
Number of lanes for use by refuge
Length (km) %
through traffic
Refuge only 6 sites
One 401.9km 93
No facility 4115 sites
Two 23.7km 6
Three 5.4km 1 Pedestrian crossing quality Sites
Adequate 123 sites
One way / two way flow Length (km) %
Poor 72 sites
Two way traffic 431km 100
Not applicable 4115 sites
Speed Length (km) %

Facilities for bicycles Length (km) %

50km/h 23.2km 5 Dedicated Bicycle Lane on
207.8km 48
roadway
60km/h 2km 0
None 223.2km 52
70km/h 1.2km 0
80km/h 404.4km 94
Facilities for motorised two-
90km/h 0.2km 0 Length (km) %
wheelers
None 431km 100
Speed Segregated Motorcycle Length (km) %
50km/h 431km 100 Minor access point density Length (km) %
Low Density 351.1km 81
Lane width for lanes serving
Length (km) % High Density 79.9km 19
through traffic
Wide 370.8km 86
Roadside severity - left hand
Medium 60.1km 14 Length (km) %
side
Narrow 0.1km 0 Safety barrier 8.8km 2
Cut 1.4km 0
Paved shoulder width Length (km) %
Deep drainage ditches 4.3km 1
Paved 1< Width < 2.4m 35.1km 8
Steep fill embankment slopes 46.5km 11
Paved 0< Width <= 1m 116.8km 27
Distance to object 0-5 m 292.1km 68
None 279.1km 65
Distance to object >10m 12.3km 3
Unpaved shoulder width Length (km) %
Not recorded (urban low speed
1.8km 0
Unpaved >= 2.4m 10.2km 2 area)
Unpaved 1< Width < 2.4m 189.1km 44
Unpaved 0< Width<=1m 137.4km 32 Roadside severity - right hand
Length (km) %
side
None 94.3km 22
Safety barrier 12.4km 3
Cut 2km 0
Curvature Length (km) %
Deep drainage ditches 2.4km 1
Straight or gently curving 335.5km 78
Steep fill embankment slopes 44.3km 10
Moderate curvature 70.1km 16
Sharp curve 21.9km 5
Very sharp 3.5km 1
Distance to object >10m 13.5km 3
Quality of curve Length (km) %

Roadside Severity Bike Path Length (km) %
Adequate 364.8km 85
Not recorded 431km 100
Poor 66.2km 15
Roadside Severity Motorcyles Length (km) %

Overtaking demand Length (km) %
Not recorded 431km 100
None 26.5km 6
Low 3.3km 1
Major intersection type Sites
High 401.2km 93
Merge Lane 2 sites
Roundabout 8 sites
Delineation Length (km) %
3-leg (unsignalised) right turn lane 120 sites
Adequate 123km 29
4-leg (unsignalised) right turn lane 11 sites
Poor 308km 71
Non-major junctions or driveways (rural
14 sites
roads only)
Vertical alignment variation Length (km) %
None 4144 sites
Flat 417.8km 97 Railway Crossing - Active (flashing lights /
1 sites
Undulating / Rolling 12.5km 3 boom gates)
Significant crests and dips 0.7km 0 Median Crossing Point - Poor condition 10 sites
Sidewalk Provision Left Length (km) % Intersection quality Sites

Adjacent to traffic 11.7km 3 Good 166 sites
None 419.3km 97 Not Applicable 4144 sites
Sidewalk Provision Right Length (km) % Median Type Length (km) %

Adjacent to traffic 6km 1 High quality barrier 0.4km 0
None 407.4km 95 Physical median width >20 m 1.1km 0
NOT RECORDED 17.6km 4 Physical median width 10-20 m 0.6km 0
Physical median width 5-10 m 2.2km 1
Physical median 1-5 m 14.6km 3
Physical median up to 1 m 7.6km 2
Centre line only 404.5km 94
Median Type Motorcycles Length (km) %

Not applicable (e.g. one way road) 431km 100
Major upgrade cost impact Length (km) %

Low 385.2km 89
Medium 27.6km 6
High 18.2km 4
Roadworks Length (km) %

No roadworks 427.9km 99
Road works in progress 3.1km 1

5 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. For example, if no bicyclists use a section of road, then a bicyclist Star Rating is not
assigned to it.
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 in Section 4. The scores are developed by combining relative risk factors using a multiplicative
model. As an example of a risk factor, the relationship between delineation and the likelihood of car
occupants being killed or seriously injured in a crash is shown below in Table 5.1. It indicates that the
relative risk of death or serious injury on a rural road is 20% greater when the delineation is poor, all other
things being equal.
Table 5.1 Motor car occupant risk factors for the likelihood of death or serious injury on a
1
rural road
Delineation Relative Risk

Adequate 1.00
Poor 1.20
More information on risk factors, RPS and Star Ratings is available in iRAP (2009) Safer Roads Investment
Plans: The iRAP Methodology (see www.irap.org).
1
The research underpinning this particular set of relationships is reflected in Austroads Road safety engineering risk
assessment project 2002-07; Elvik, R. Vaa, T. (2004) The handbook of road safety measures. Elsevier, The Netherlands;
and Ogden, K. W. (1966) Safer roads: a guide to road safety engineering. Avebury Technical, Ashgate Publishing
Limited, Grower House, Croft Road, Aldershot, England.

5.1 Overall Star Ratings
The overall Star Ratings for the roads assessed is shown below in Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.
Table 5.2 Overall Star Ratings for Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
Table 5.3 Overall Star Ratings for Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
Table 5.4 Overall Star Ratings for Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38)

5.2 Star Rating Maps
Figures 5.1 to 5.3
.3 illustrate the Star Ratings in map form for each of the car occupants,
occupant motorcyclists,
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Figure 5.1 Star Ratings for Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
Car occupants (SH4)
Motorcyclists (SH4)

Pedestrians (SH4)
Bicyclists (SH4)

Figure 5.2 Star Ratings for Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
Car occupants (SH31)
Motorcyclists (SH31)

Pedestrians (SH31)
Bicyclists (SH31)

Figure 5.3 Star Ratings for Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38)
Car occupants (SH38)
Motorcyclists (SH38)

Pedestrians (SH38)
Bicyclists (SH38)

5.3 Road Protection Scores
Figures 5.4 to 5.15 provide an example of how the RPS can vary along a road. They illustrate the RPS for
car occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists on SH4, SH31 and SH38. In these charts, a low
RPS indicates a relatively low level of risk while a high RPS indicates a high level of risk. Star Rating bands
are overlaid on the RPS charts, with the green band representing 5-stars (the safest) and the black band
representing 1-star (the least safe).
Figure 5.4 Road Protection Scores for car occupants, SH4
Figure 5.5 Road Protection Scores for motorcyclists, SH4

Figure 5.6 Road Protection Scores for pedestrians, SH4

Figure 5.7 Road Protection Scores for bicyclists, SH4





5.4 Examples of Star Ratings
Figures 5.16 and 5.17 show examples of sections of roads, their Star Ratings and the road attributes that
influenced their Star Ratings. The figures illustrate Star Ratings for car occupants and pedestrians, as they
account for the majority of roads deaths. However, similar figures are able to be produced for motorcyclists
and bicyclist.
In the figures:
Green coloured attributes are associated with a reduced level of risk
Yellow coloured attributes are associated with a intermediate level of risk
Red coloured attributes are associated with an increased level of risk.
The figures help to illustrate the fact that the level of risk associated with a roads infrastructure, and hence
its Star Rating, is a function of numerous attributes, including travel speeds.
Figure 5.16 Examples of Star Ratings for car occupants

Figure 5.17 Examples of Star Ratings for pedestrians

6 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 Star Ratings and Safer Roads Investment Plans use a standardised global methodology,
the models are 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 the roads being assessed in this project
is described.
6.1.1 Traffic volumes
Traffic volume data is used by the iRAP model in the generation of estimates of the number of deaths and
serious injuries that could be prevented on the roads. For this project, data was sourced from the RDC.
Where necessary, this data was complemented with estimates based on observations of the video data.

Figure 6.1 Annual average daily traffic volumes on the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road
(SH4)
Figure 6.2 Annual average daily traffic volumes on the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)

Figure 6.3 Annual average daily traffic volumes on the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38)
6.1.2 Motorcycle traffic volumes
From the data provided by RDC, motorcycles typically account for between 10% and 20% of traffic flows.
This category of flows was used in the analyses.
6.1.3 Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes
Data on pedestrian and bicycle flows were recorded during the road inspection and rating. The observed
pedestrian flows in particular were very high. Figure 6.4 shows an example of the pedestrian movements at
the start of the inspection of SH4.

Figure 6.4 An example of the very high pedestrian traffic on the SH4 (3.9km from start)
It is possible to rely solely on this data for processing, though it is not recommended. This is because
pedestrian and bicycle flows can be transitory and a one-off visual inspection is unlikely to provide a strong
basis for determining overall flows. Ideally, detailed survey data on pedestrian movements are used to
complement the iRAP rating data. Given that this is not available in this project, an alternate method,
drawing on the presence of sidewalks and land use data (including none, residential, commercial and
educational), was used.
6.1.4 Number of deaths and serious injuries
As part of the iRAP model calibration, an estimate of the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads
is required. Table 6.1 shows numbers of deaths on reported for sections of the roads, sourced from the
RDC. It also shows death rates per kilometre and per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled.

Table 6.1 Reported deaths on the three roads
Deaths Deaths per
Weighted 100m
Deaths /
From To Length average vehicle
2007 2008 2009 Average km
AADT kilometres
travelled
Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
0 8 8 NA NA 26828 NA
8 32 24 14 12 4 10 0.4 9589 12
32 91 59 19 21 20 20 0.3 4455 21
91 124.8 33.8 NA NA 2701 NA
0 124.8 124.8 0.4 16
Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
0 138 138 102 67 74 81 0.6 8535 19
138 187 49 18 0.4 7338 14
187 234 47 33 17 13 21 0.4 6340 19
234 263 29 6 3 4 4 0.1 3903 10
0 263 263 141 87 91 125 0.5 6529 16
Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38)
0 48 48 23 27 39 30 0.6 5768 30
Based on these figures, the average number of deaths per kilometre per year for the inspected road lengths
are estimated to be 0.4 (SH4), 0.5 (SH31) and 0.6 (SH38). This is equal to or slightly higher than the
combined average rates for national and state highways in India, which was approximately 0.4 deaths per
kilometre in 2006 (Mohan et al, 2009).
However, there is evidence to suggest that these numbers are subject to under reporting and poor quality
reporting systems. To deal with this issue, the World Health Organisation presented modelled data that
corrected for these issues in its Global Status Report, 2009. The WHO report estimated that a total of
196,445 people were killed in India in 2006, compared to the reported number of 105,725 (WHO, 2009). This
implies that for each recorded death, 1.9 deaths actually occurred. It is noted that this is significantly higher
than the 5% level of under reporting cited by Mohan (2001). Following discussions with the World Bank
Global Road Safety Facility, it was agreed that the WHO factor would be applied in calibrating the iRAP
model.
As a result of these calculations, the numbers of deaths on the inspected lengths of roads are estimated to
be:
88 deaths per year on the 125km section of the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
228 deaths per year on the 259km section of the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)

2
54 deaths per year on the 48km section of the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38).
Using these numbers, it is then possible to apply the standard iRAP assumption that for each death there is
10 serious injuries to estimate that there is a total of 4,070 deaths and serious injuries on the roads each
year (Dahdah and McMahon, 2008).
For India, the standard iRAP ratio might be conservative. For example, Mohan (2001) used what was
referred to as a conservative estimate of 15 serious injuries for each death in determining crash costs for
India. It was also argued that a ratio of 18 people reporting to hospital for each death, cited in separate
research, is likely to be an underestimate because among those injured many would have been treated at
home or by private medical practitioners. On this basis, the overall estimate of deaths and serious injuries on
the roads in this study might be considered conservative.
6.1.5 Road deaths by road user type
In order to allocate deaths and serious injuries to the network, the iRAP model also 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 6.2. The estimates used are
based on the average of the data.
Table 6.2 Proportion of road deaths by road user type
Proportion of road deaths

NH-45 NH-1 at Ambala 14 sections of
India
Road user type National
Highway Average
(Padmanaban (Ambala Police (Mohan et al
(WHO, 2009)) (2009))
et al (2009)) Database)
Car occupants 25% 22% 21% 32% 25%
Motorcyclists 46% 22% 26% 24% 30%
Pedestrians 22% 56% 33% 32% 36%
Bicyclists 7% 0% 20% 12% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6.1.6 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
2
If deaths are adjusted for under reporting, then the deaths rates per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled
is 31 for SH4, 30 for SH31 and 56 for SH38.

countermeasure costs were estimated by iRAP based on existing data collated for India and adjusted for the
difference in GDP per capita. A sample of the data is shown Appendix 1, and the full data set is available in
the iRAP online software (www.iraptools.net).
6.1.7 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.
On this basis:
the economic cost of a death is estimated to be: Rs 3,530,299 (USD $79,735)
the economic cost of a serious injury is estimated to be: Rs 882,575 (USD $19,933).
6.1.8 Discount rate
To calculate Net Present Costs and Benefits, a discount rate of 4% was used.
6.1.9 Road sections
Each record has a section code. Section codes are used to group together 100 metre segments for both
processing and reporting purposes. Road sections are typically aligned with road authority inventory data,
obvious changes in road condition or with obvious landmarks such as towns. For example, a 100 km long
highway might pass through four evenly spaced towns. In this case the road might be split into four, 25 km
sections, numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. In this case, each section would contain 250 individual 100 m long road
segments.
For the purposes of this project, roads have been split into sections roughly according to traffic volumes.
These may be changed following advice from the RDC.

6.2 Investment Plans
Using inspection and supporting data with the iRAP methodology, a series of investment plan options have
been produced for the roads.
6.2.1 Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)
Table 6.3 below provides an overview of a range of investment plans for SH4. It shows that a very small
investment of a little more than $200,000 (SH4-1) would generate an economic benefit of $21 million,
resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 65:1. This plan would result in a 6% reduction in deaths and serious injuries
on SH4.
At the other end of the spectrum, an investment of $12 million (SH4-5) would generate an economic benefit
of $164 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 3:1. This plan would result in a 49% reduction in deaths and
serious injuries on SH4.
Table 6.3 Investment plan options for SH4 ($US)
SH4-1 SH4-2 SH4-3 SH4-4 SH4-5

Investment (m) 0.2 0.5 1 2 12
Economic benefit (20 years) (m) 21 37 54 80 164
Deaths (per year)
Prevented 6 10 14 21 43
Reduction 6% 11% 16% 24% 49%
Prevented 1,235 2,130 3,152 4,623 9,509
Reduction 6% 11% 16% 24% 49%

Table 6.5 provides a summary of the investment profile for the plans in years 1, 6, 11 and 16, reflecting the
life-span of the various countermeasures (see Appendix 1 for more details on the life span of
countermeasures).
Table 6.5 Investment plans reflecting life-span of countermeasures ($US 000)
Plan Investment
Year 1 Year 6 Year 11 Year 16 Total
SH4-1 149,367 12,658 27,848 12,658 200,000
SH4-2 413,124 19,409 49,908 19,409 500,000
SH4-3 833,891 28,986 112,598 28,986 1,000,000
SH4-4 1,810,934 34,928 123,766 34,928 2,000,000
SH4-5 10,870,116 128,331 874,656 128,331 12,000,000
Tables 6.6 and 6.7 provide a summary of the countermeasures that are recommended for the SH4-1 (least
expensive) and SH4-5 (most expensive) plans.
Table 6.6 Countermeasure options for plan SH4-1


6.2.2 Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)
Table 6.8 below provides an overview of a range of investment plans for SH31. It shows that an investment
of $800,000 (SH31-1) would generate an economic benefit of $67 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of
81:1. This plan would result in an 8% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on SH31. At the other end of
the spectrum, an investment of $57.5 million (SH31-5) would generate an economic benefit of $447 million,
on SH4. This plan was generated by requiring that all countermeasures have a minimum BCR 1. Therefore,
any investment beyond $57.5 million will result in countermeasures that have costs which exceed their
benefits.
SH31-1 SH31-2 SH31-3 SH31-4 SH31-5

Investment (m) 0.8 2.1 5.4 14.8 57.5
Economic benefit (20 years) (m) 67 112 195 316 447
Deaths (per year)
Prevented 18 30 52 84 118
Reduction 8% 13% 23% 37% 52%
Prevented 3,917 6,532 11,342 18,370 25,980
Reduction 8% 13% 23% 37% 52%
countermeasures).
Plan Investment
SH31-1 628 0 198 0 829
SH31-2 1,837 62 123 62 2,077
SH31-3 5,048 94 172 94 5,407
SH31-4 14,079 161 412 161 14,816
SH31-5 52,592 262 4,381 262 57,500

Tables 6.10 and 6.11 provide a summary of the countermeasures that are recommended for the SH31-1
(least expensive) and SH31-5 (most expensive) plans.

6.2.3 Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38)
Table 6.12 below provides an overview of a range of investment plans for SH38. It shows that an investment
of less than $100,000 (SH38-1) would generate an economic benefit of $6.6 million, resulting in a benefit
cost ratio of 92:1. This plan would result in a 3% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on SH38. At the
other end of the spectrum, an investment of $12.7 million (SH38-5) would generate an economic benefit of
$79.5 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 6:1. This plan would result in a 39% reduction in deaths and
serious injuries on SH38. This plan was generated by requiring that all countermeasures have a minimum
BCR 1. Therefore, any investment beyond $12.7 million will result in countermeasures that have costs which
exceed their benefits.
SH38-1 SH38-2 SH38-3 SH38-4 SH38-5

Investment (m) 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.7 12.7
Deaths (per year)
Prevented 2 3 5 9 21
Reduction 3% 5% 9% 17% 39%
Prevented 381 617 1,026 1,964 4,616
Reduction 3% 5% 9% 17% 39%
countermeasures).
Plan Investment
SH38-1 46 7 14 7 71
SH38-2 152 10 33 10 204
SH38-3 391 22 83 22 515
SH38-4 1,505 51 142 51 1,747
SH38-5 11,844 83 736 83 12,751

Tables 6.14 and 6.15 provide a summary of the countermeasures that are recommended for the SH38-1
(least expensive) and SH38-5 (most expensive) plans.

6.2.4 Three corridors combined
Table 6.16 below provides an overview of a range of investment plans for the three corridors combined. It
shows that an investment of $1.1 million (Option 1) would generate an economic benefit of $93 million,
on the three corridors. At the other end of the spectrum, an investment of $87 million (Option 5) would
generate an economic benefit of $636 million, resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 7:1. This plan would result in
a 45% reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the three corridors.
This plan was generated by requiring that all countermeasures have a minimum BCR 1. Therefore, any
investment beyond $87 million will result in countermeasures that have costs which exceed their benefits.
Table 6.16 Investment plan options for all three corridors ($US)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Investment (m) 1.1 2.8 6.9 18.6 82.2
Deaths (per year)
Prevented 25 42 71 113 182
Reduction 7% 11% 19% 31% 49%
Prevented 5,533 9,279 15,520 24,957 40,105
Reduction 7% 11% 19% 31% 49%
countermeasures).
Plan Investment
Option 1 823 20 239 20 1,100
Option 2 2,402 91 205 91 2,781
Option 3 6,273 145 368 145 6,922
Option 4 17,395 247 678 247 18,563
Option 5 75,306 473 5,992 473 82,251

6.3 Example of proposed countermeasure options
In this section of the report, an example of the countermeasures proposed for a short section of SH4 from
km 14.0 to km 14.4) is provided as a means of illustrating how various countermeasures are selected using
engineering and economic criteria.
6.3.1 Engineering criteria: countermeasure triggers
For each countermeasure, a series of triggers (or prerequisite conditions) have been defined. A trigger must
be satisfied before that countermeasure is considered suitable for a section of road. The triggers are applied
for each 100 metre section of road throughout the network, and are typically a function of:
1. Star Ratings, which are based on Road Protection Scores
2. Road condition, such as lane width or adequacy of delineation.
3. Traffic volume.
An example of the triggers for improving delineation is provided in Table 6.18 below. Trigger 1 requires that
delineation be improved on any section of road that has a traffic flow greater than 0, has poor delineation
and is not rated 5-stars (the safest level) for car occupants. However, trigger 2 requires that even if a section
of road is rated 5-stars good delineation should be provided at moderate curves and where there are severe
roadsides present. Trigger 3 requires that good delineation be provided on all sections of road where there is
a sharp or very sharp curve.
Table 6.18 A sample of triggers for the delineation countermeasure
Trigger Variable Requirement

1 Traffic flow Greater than 0
Delineation Poor
Car occupant Star Rating 1 to 4-stars
Curvature Moderate
Delineation Poor
Roadside severity Deep drainage ditches, steep fill
embankment, distance to object 0-5m,
distance to object 5-10m
Car occupant Star Rating 5-stars
Curvature Sharp curve or very sharp curve
Delineation Poor
Car occupant Star Rating 5-stars
The iRAP model includes more 300 different triggers for the assessment of potential countermeasures
across the road network.

6.3.2 Engineering criteria: application rules
In addition to the triggers, the iRAP model applies a series of application rules for certain countermeasures.
These ensure that the countermeasure recommendations align with good engineering practice. For
example:
grade-separated pedestrian crossings must be at least one kilometre apart
new signalised pedestrian crossings (non-intersection facilities) must be at least 600 metres apart
additional lanes (such as overtaking lanes or 2+1 cross section) must be required for a minimum
length of one kilometre before they are considered viable.
6.3.3 Engineering criteria: hierarchy
The countermeasures are also subject to a hierarchy, with the most comprehensive countermeasures taking
precedence. This ensures that there is no duplication of treatments that impact the same road feature. For
example:
if a grade separated pedestrian facility is feasible then that treatment will take precedence over all
other pedestrian measures (such as a pedestrian refuge or signalised crossing)
if a horizontal realignment is feasible then any treatments that are no longer relevant can be
removed (for example, curve delineation and shoulder widening)
if a segregated motorcycle lane is feasible then any lower standard motorcycle lanes (such as an on-
road motorcycle lane) can be removed from the plan.
This approach assumes that comprehensive countermeasures are designed with safety as a key criterion,
and the new treatment reflects best practice in safety design (for example, motorcycle lanes must manage
conflicts at intersections).
6.3.4 Economic criteria: benefit cost ratio
Following these steps, the countermeasures are subject to a benefit cost analysis, comparing the cost of the
countermeasure (life-cycle cost) with the economic benefits in terms of crash costs avoided.
6.3.5 Example
The images below show five consecutive 100 metre segments of SH4, from km 14.0 to km 14.4.The images
show that the following countermeasures are considered feasible according to the engineering criteria:
safety barriers
shoulder widening
delineation
pedestrian crossing signalisation
intersection signalisation

flexi posts (in the median)
central hatching.
As just one example, the pedestrian refuge island did not satisfy the engineering criteria. This is because
within the hierarchy of countermeasures, signalised crossings are recommended ahead of pedestrian
refuges.
The images also provide the estimated benefit cost ratio for each of the countermeasures that satisfied the
engineering criteria. These range from extremely low for median barriers (to the point where they have a
benefit cost ratio of less than 1, and so are not considered economically viable) to a very high for shoulder
sealing on the bend. It can be seen that as the benefit cost ratio threshold for an investment program
increases, then various countermeasures will drop out of the program. For example, a benefit cost ratio
threshold of 10 would see the safety barriers at km 14.0 drop from the plan.
Figure 6.1 An example of proposed countermeasures that have satisfied engineering criteria,
and their estimated benefit cost ratios

7 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 of each proposal, final evaluation and then 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. The Road Safety Toolkit
(http://toolkit.irap.org) also provide guidance on the implementation of road safety countermeasures.
In the following sections, key issues that should be taken into consideration during the implementation
process are discussed.
7.1 A Safe System

In order to make SH4, SH31 and SH38 safer, 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 especially important. Efforts have been made around the world 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 Figure 7.1 below).

Figure 7.1 Large barriers can be used to channel pedestrians to safe crossing points and
mitigate noise
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.
7.2 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 some countries is a 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.
As discussed in Section 3 of this report, the Star Ratings herein are based on the posted speed limits of the
inspected roads where it is clear. This implicitly assumes 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 5-
star), 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).
In order to ensure that Star Rating results reflect the speeds actually travelled and that the most appropriate
countermeasures are triggered, further research may be possible for Andhra Pradesh. Once the broad
shape of an investment plan has been agreed, it is necessary for travelled speed profiles to become part of
the detailed project planning and site assessments.
In terms of speed management more broadly, 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 Andhra Pradeshs stakeholders to decide if and when a state-wide
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.
7.3 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, should be collected. The recently released Good Practice
Manual (2010) on data provides guidance on this issue.

8 Recommendations
The following are initial recommendations for consideration by the Andhra Pradesh Road Development
Corporation and the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility. It is envisaged that these recommendations will
be refined following consultation with stakeholders.
Road safety countermeasures
1. The RDC review the countermeasures proposed in Section 6 of this report, with a view to
implementing countermeasures as part of the Andhra Pradesh Road Sector Project
Implementation of Road Safety Action Plan.
Programme and implementation
2. The RDC become formal members of iRAP (at no cost). The RDC would be the lead agency for
iRAP.
3. Within the RDC, a project implementation team is established to ensure the iRAP recommendations
are included in existing and future Andhra Pradesh Government and development bank funded
corridor upgrades, and to oversee future iRAP assessments in Andhra Pradesh.
4. iRAP assessments are extended to the 10,000km Central Road Network in Andhra Pradesh.
5. iRAP becomes a standing agenda item for meetings of the Empowered Committee in Andhra
Pradesh, and that iRAP activities are coordinated with other road safety initiatives, such as the
RS10 projects.
6. iRAP performance measures are integrated into Andhra Pradesh policy and strategies. This should
consider Star Rating targets for the year 2020, and performance tracking of ongoing investment.
Further guidance on this is provided in: Create a World Free of High Risk Roads
(http://irap.org/media/22665/create_a_world_free_of_high_risk_roads.pdf).
7. RDC ensures that all future road infrastructure upgrades are accompanied by information and
awareness campaigns to ensure local communities are knowledgeable about the way in which the
infrastructure is intended to be used.
Training and development
8. Formal training sessions be conducted with RDC engineers, design staff and consultants likely to be
undertaking road construction and maintenance operations in Andhra Pradesh.
9. Investigate options to integrate iRAP training into university level education, research and
qualifications and professional training.
Future assessment
10. Integrate future iRAP inspections with pavement and asset management survey tasks (e.g. video,
GPS, pavement data collection)

11. Conduct a detailed review of the iRAP Inspection Manual prior to any further rating to ensure that all
features reflect Andhra Pradesh design standards and practice.
12. Continue to monitor and collect key data required for the iRAP analysis (e.g. traffic volume data,
crash data, and countermeasure cost data).
13. Ensure that before and after studies are undertaken to assess the road safety impact of various
road infrastructure upgrades. This should include research on the use of lateral rumble strips on
highways to slow traffic at high risk locations and the measurement of actual traffic speeds.
Funding
14. The RDC, World Bank and Asian Development Bank give consideration to providing the funding
necessary to support the implementation of a long term iRAP programme in Andhra Pradesh and
construction of resultant countermeasure programmes.
Model and theory
15. Undertake further research on the ideal road cross-sections for roads in Andhra Pradesh that meet
the safety needs of heavy vehicles, cars, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians and animal traffic, in
particular the appropriate design for pedestrian facilities.
Regional engagement
16. Support the ongoing involvement and participation of Andhra Pradesh stakeholders in regional iRAP
activities (such as the iRAP Asia Pacific workshop and conference papers).
17. Support ongoing sharing of knowledge with Government staff from other countries with active iRAP
programmes (e.g. Philippines, Malaysia, China and India).

9 References
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.
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., The Road Ahead Traffic Injuries and Fatalities in India, TRIPP, April 2004, Delhi.
Mohan, D. (2001) Social Cost of Road Traffic Crashes in India. Cited in proceedings of the 1st Safe
Community-Conference on Cost Calculation and Cost-effectiveness in Injury Prevention and Safety
Promotion, Viborg County, Denmark, 30 September - 3 October 2001
State Crime Records Bureau (2010) cited in Road accidents on a rise in Andhra Pradesh. PTI, Wednesday
19 May 2010, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_road-accidents-on-a-rise-in-andhra-pradesh_1384961.
World Health Organisation (2009) Global Status Report on Road Safety. Time for Action.
World Health Organisation (2010) Data systems: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners.

Appendix 1: Countermeasure Costs
Sample of countermeasure costs (Rs)
Service Cost - Urban -
Countermeasure Unit of Cost
Life Medium
Improve delineation 5 lane km 73,000
Bicycle lane (on-road) 20 per km (serving both directions) 1,900,000
Bicycle lane (off-road) 20 per km (serving both directions) 6,900,000
Motorcycle lane (painted logos only on-road) 5 per km (serving both directions) 73,000
Motorcycle lane (construct on-road) 20 per km (serving both directions) 6,900,000
Motorcycle lane (segregated) 20 per km (serving both directions) 13,800,000
Horizontal realignment 20 lane km 23,200,000
Improve curve delineation 5 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) 5 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 per km (serving both directions) 257,000
Rumble strip / flexi-post 10 per km (serving both directions) 441,000
Central turning lane full length 10 per km (serving both directions) 11,000,000
Central median barrier (no duplication) 10 per km (serving both directions) 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 per km (serving both directions) 41,700,000
Additional lane 20 per km (serving both directions) 65,100,000
Implement one way network 20 per carriageway km 23,400,000
Upgrade existing pedestrian facilities 10 unit 240,000

Service Cost - Urban -
Countermeasure Unit of Cost
Life Medium
Refuge Island 10 unit 240,000
Unsignalised crossing 10 unit 240,000
Signalised crossing 20 unit 960,000
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 5,500,000
Shoulder sealing (>1m) 20 per carriageway km 2,900,000
Unsealed shoulder (<1m) 10 per carriageway km 685,000
Unsealed shoulder (>1m) 10 per carriageway km 1,400,000
Parking improvements 10 per km (serving both directions) 400,000
Restrict/combine direct access points 10 per km (serving both directions) 29,000
Regulate roadside commercial activity 10 per km (serving both directions) 60,000
Footpath provision (adjacent to road) 20 per km (serving both directions) 4,600,000
Footpath provision (separated from road) 20 per km (serving both directions) 6,900,000
Traffic calming 10 per carriageway km 2,300,000
Vertical realignment (minor) 20 lane km 17,300,000
Vertical realignment (major) 20 lane km 57,600,000
Overtaking lane 20 per linear km 65,100,000
Median Crossing Upgrade 10 intersection 1,200,000
Clear roadside hazards (bike lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 2,500,000
Sideslope improvement (bike lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 2,500,000
Roadside barriers (bike lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 4,400,000
Clear roadside hazards (seg MC lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 2,800,000
Sideslope improvement (seg MC lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 2,500,000
Roadside barriers (seg MC lane) 20 per km (serving both directions) 4,400,000
Median Barrier (seg MC lane) 10 per km (serving both directions) 4,400,000


Andhra Pradesh Technical Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andhra Pradesh Technical Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 1

iRAP works in partnership with government and non-government organisations to:

For more information

This report was prepared by:

International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) 2011

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 2

Date Version Update

18 October 11 1 First draft preliminary results

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 3

1. The Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4) 125km.

2. The Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31) 259km.

3. The Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38) 48km.

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 4

Investment plan options for all three corridors ($US)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 5

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 6

Mr Premchand Reddy, Andhra Pradesh Transport Commissioner

Mr Reddy, Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation

Mr Phanindra Prasad, Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation

Mr Said Dahdah, World Bank Global Road Safety Facility

Mr Gopalakrishna Parasuraman, Indian Road Survey and Management.

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 7

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Road Network .......................................................................................................................................... 11

3 Road Inspections and Rating ................................................................................................................... 12

4 Road Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 14

5 Star Ratings ............................................................................................................................................. 17

6 Safer Roads Investment Plan .................................................................................................................. 37

Appendix 1: Countermeasure Costs .......................................................................................................... 62

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 8

a 125km section of the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)

a 259km section of the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)

a 48km section of the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38).

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 9

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.

1.2 Results Online

Web address: http://asiapac.iraptools.net/irap22/

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 10

a 125km section of the Hyderabad to Karnataka Border Road (SH4)

a 259km section of the Renigunta - Rayalacheruvu Road (SH31)

a 48km section of the Anakapalli - Anandapuram Road (SH38).

Figure 2.1 The SH4, SH31 and SH38 highways

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 11

3.1 Road Inspection

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

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 12

80km/h in rural and semi urban

50km/h in urban areas

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 13

Bicycle Flow Length (km) % Not Recorded 0.9km 0

Side friction Length (km) %

Speed Length (km) %

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 14

Quality of curve Length (km) %

Roadside Severity Motorcyles Length (km) %

Sidewalk Provision Left Length (km) % Intersection quality Sites

iRAP Andhra Pradesh Demonstration Corridors: Technical Report | 15

Sidewalk Provision Right Length (km) % Median Type Length (km) %

Median Type Motorcycles Length (km) %

Major upgrade cost impact Length (km) %

Roadworks Length (km) %