Home

STARs Evaluation Tool User Guide

1. A road research in europe STARs STARs Evaluation Tool User Guide Deliverable 5 October 2013 aa 27 SCT Biss vti zac This project was initiated by ERA NET ROAD road 3 net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Eucersu ig ma c owe ua oEVU ee duewrecca coge Ue oe Project 832690 Project acronym STARS Project title Scoring Traffic at Roadworks Deliverable Nr 5 STARs Evaluation Tool User Guide Start date of project 01 11 2011 End date of project 31 10 2013 Author s this deliverable Jill Weekley lain Rillie TRL UK Xavier Cocu Renaud Sarrazin BRRC Belgium Matthias Zimmermann KIT Germany Alan O Connor Nora Ni Nuallain TCD Ireland Anita Ihs Jonas Wennstrom VTI Sweden Mojca Ravnikar Turk ZAG Slovenia Version final Page 2 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 road ERA net Table of contents On AUN Ine m Tool ces m M How to use the tool Parameter user guidance Case studies Interpreting the resulte scies cssicsesenetsaste nates teni asat aec tta caeca b acd Ea ah Rd dta ka Edda AZ Page 3 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 1 Introduction ERA NET ROAD II ENR2 is a Coordination Action comissioned by the 7th Framework Programme of the EC www eranetroad org Within the fram
2. Total delay per day log t Figure 4 Utility function for TP The last objective of the STARs Road Works Evaluation Tool is to propose a single global star rating using the three individual scores on road user safety road worker safety and network performance Classically utility based methods use weights associated to each marginal utility function Again in view of giving flexibility for further development and customisation it was decided to apply a simple additive form to aggregate the utility functions and to allow the decision maker to associate the set of weights with each criterion The weights give the relative importance of each criterion so that 40 40 20 would give twice as much importance to the first criterion In the tool the default weighting assigns equal importance to each criterion 33 33 33 but this can be changed by the user Page 10 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 3 How to use the tool To use the tool the user must first open the STARs evaluation tool excel file note that the STARs EvaluationCriteria file must be in the same folder in order to run the calculations and must have the same version number To start an assessment the user presses the button Calculate all alternatives the additional button on this startup screen is used to manually run the dominance calculations on an existing results file and will not usually be used Home mut pag
3. Work zone speed limit Page 32 of 51 Value from the options list 2x2 H S Continuously Lit night time Standard 3 to 4 km regulation advance warning 2500m transition area 150m activity area 750m termination area 150m Lane closure Less than 5 5 to 20 Less than 5 10 to 40 1 hour to 10 hours 7 to 30 days 1 hour to 10 hours 1 hour to 10 hours 48000 to 72000 55 000 veh d 3000 veh hr to 5000 veh hr 3 300 veh h 120 70 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Speed limit units Speed compliance management Traffic HGV composition Risk mitigation measures Far advance warning Far advance warning length Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Signage levels Delineation Lane closure mechanism Use of vehicle restraint systems Use of lookout systems Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Control through carriageway design Width of open lane 1 Width of open lane 2 Width of open lane 3 Workforce training Workforce PPE standards TM vehicle conspicuity standards Works design legislation standards Safety management system requirements Page 33 of 51 road EA net km h Variable Nothing or Vehicle activated signs or Spot enforcement More than 20 Sign VMS 2500m in fact 5000m Standard 0 5m Optimised regional regulations Variable Panels or Temporary barrier Variable Tapers or Both Variable None or Low performance Non
4. methodology being used to develop the tool details of the technical concepts underlying the three equations models and are described in Project Deliverable 4 STARs Final Report This tool is intended for use by road works contracting authorities in setting performance targets for road works schemes contractors in achieving these performance targets and road authorities in planning and assessing proposed road work schemes It can be used to assess real proposed or hypothetical road works schemes in terms of the safety of road workers and road users and the network performance but also to assess the impact of varying management strategies in order to minimise the risk in all three areas at the same time Alternative strategies are ranked to identify the optimal solution This tool is proof of concept only and as such has limitations for example it is designed for roadworks on motorways and for planned works only i e not reactive incident management It should also be noted that the tool is intended primarily for comparison of different management strategies for a given roadworks Care must be taken if the use is to compare fundamentally different roadworks since for example works with a longer duration will pose a larger risk to all three areas however this does not necessarily represent a poor management strategy It is also designed for use across European countries and as such a user may find that options are available that are contrary
5. the main direction If all the lanes of the main carriageway are closed and even if a contraflow layout is installed the user should input the original number of lanes Note that it is possible for the number of closed lanes and number of open lanes to equal more than the total number of lanes for example if a single lane is closed on a three lane road but the three lanes of traffic remain but are shifted to the right Parameter Number of lanes closed opposite direction Options 0 1 2 3 Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile or minor works and will be disabled The user should input the number of lanes closed on the opposite carriageway i e where the road works are not being carried out A reduction of the number of open lanes only happen when a contraflow layout is installed Parameter Lane closure location Options Slow Fast N A The user should select one of the options based on road work s lane closure location On three lane motorways the second and third lanes are both considered to be fast lanes If the road works impact the slow lane only the user should select Slow If the road works impact the fast lane only the user should select Fast If the road works impact the slow and median lanes on a 3 lanes motorway the user should select Slow If the road works impact the fast and median lanes on a 3 lanes motorway the user should select Fast If the road works impact the whole carriag
6. 11 Alt 3 15 40 8 Alt n 18 95 22 Table 2 Illustration of an evaluation table alternative number criteria Module III Multicriteria Solver Module Solving a multicriteria problem starts with identifying the most efficient solutions of the problem i e the best candidates with respect to the constraints and the nature of the problem The efficiency of a solution an alternative is here measured on the basis of the dominance principle meaning that if a solution is dominated by another it is removed from the set of solutions Within the STARs evaluation tool this step is achieved by making pairwise comparisons of the evaluations obtained by the alternatives on the three criteria In a concrete multicriteria problem with several criteria and a large set of alternatives most of the solutions are efficient because of the poverty of the dominance relation Then to solve the multicriteria problem you may need to use heuristic model which are complex and time consuming problem solver In STARs there is a limited set of criteria and a quantifiable design space Therefore the dominance relation remains quite strong and allows inefficient alternatives to be excluded and to some extent the most promising ones to be highlighted Finally the remaining alternatives constitute the set of efficient solutions Ranking the efficient alternatives is difficult and as usual in MCDA methods additional information is necess
7. 561712 2x2 MW S Contnous 3 alt 000064 0 164448 2 19E 05 2 143882 0 771104 0 467149 0 39707 4 3 2 3 0 545108 22 WS Continous A ait 000062 0 200596 2 74E 05 2 114312 0 690020 0 421426 0 397151 4 2 2 3 0 505005 22 WS Contnous m N o a Number of Hardshouic Time of da Figure 9 Example of Dominance worksheet The Summary dominant solutions worksheet displays all dominant solutions in terms of their Score and the values taken by the variable parameters that resulted in that score This provides the user with clear information of the best options for the road works in question and how that can be achieved in terms of the variable parameters selected Page 14 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 1 2 3 Dominant Solutions alt 000096 alt 000064 alt 000062 Overall Stars Rating ase 05617225 0 54510763 0 50580516 Road User Safety cod 048543369 046714855 0 42143568 Road Worker Safety 002662601 077110435 0 69882836 Traffic Performance s 0970419 0 39707 0 39715144 Variable Parameters Speed compliance managemen Spot enforcement police Vehicle activated signs Vehicle activated signs Delineation Temporary barrier Temporary barrier Temporary barrier Lane closure mechanism Both Both Both Use of vehicle restraint system Low performance Low performance Low performance Use of physical traffic managen Transverse pavement mai Transvers
8. advance warning length Page 40 of 51 road ERA net Value from the options list 2x2 H S Variable Night time Daytime Variable Lit daytime Unlit night time Standard 500m to 1 km regulation advance warning 500m transition area 100m safety vehicles included activity area 50m work vehicle included Lane closure Less than 5 Less than 5 Less than 10 Less than 1 hour Less than 10 hours Less than 1 hour 24000 to 48000 36 000 veh d 1000 to 3000 veh hr 2 160 veh h 120 120 km h Nothing 12 to 20 Variable Nothing or Sign VMS 1000m STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Signage levels Lane closure mechanism Use of lookout systems Use of TMA LMCC Workforce training Workforce PPE standards TM vehicle conspicuity standards Works design legislation standards Safety management system requirements Page 41 of 51 road ERA net Standard 0 5m Variable Optimised regional regulations or Optimised plus additional LED VMS IPV None Variable 1 or more than 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 6 Interpreting the results In this section we analyse and interpret the results of the five case studies which have been defined in the previous section For each case we define at first the size of the complete set of alternatives and number
9. as dynamic signing for road work signing e g for advanced queue warning the signage levels could be considered as Optimised plus STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Delineation Options None Cones Panels Barrels Cylinders Temporary barrier Permanent barrier Other Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled There are a number of options available for delineation of the workzone and the user should select the option that is most relevant to the works Workplace delineation maintains clearance between passing traffic and the work force It may be a system intended to prevent vehicles entering the work zone or to give a visible edge Cones panels barrels and cylinders do not prevent road workers from crossing into the path of passing traffic or protect road workers from errant vehicles These options provide visual guidance only However barrels and panels are larger and sturdier Cone lines may be enhanced by using rope or bars to provide warning to workers that they are close to the edge of the work zone Figure 20 Examples of delineation left to right cones traffic barrel cylinder panel Temporary and permanent barriers are intended to restrain errant vehicles see also Use of vehicle restraint systems for examples Parameter Lane closure mechanism Options None IPV Tapers Both The user should select the method used to close lanes in the
10. compared to minor works Table 1 Definition of road works type The parameters are classified following two main categories The Fixed parameters are site country and layout specific or operational parameters the project manager decides to fix This means only one specific value is taken by the parameter Two options are possible in this case o User input number number value given by the user o User input tick box the user is asked to tick a specific value in a tick list Typical fixed parameters are motorway and road works types length of whole works traffic flow number of lanes closed time taken for works length for advance warning TM vehicle conspicuity standards etc The Variable parameters are operational parameters the user chooses to vary For parameters identified as being variable the user can further select two or more values in a tick list to assess the impact of that variation in the road work scheme Typical variable parameters are speed compliance management delineation width of open lane lateral distance between workzone and traffic etc Some parameters are fixed in the STARs evaluation tool others can be selected as fixed or variable by the user The legislative strategic and operational issues specific to the country as well as the local constraints will of course highly influence the user s choice Values attributed to fixed and variable parameters together populate the Alternatives tab
11. e g signs etc Parameter Number of workers in closure Options Less than 5 5 to 20 More than 20 The user should estimate how many workers will be required to carry out the works themselves and will be present in the closure and exposed to risk This refers to those Page 19 of 51 road ERA net workers undertaking repairs etc for which the temporary traffic management and work zone has been set out STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Number of workers for maintenance Options Less than 5 More than 5 Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled Maintenance of the roadworks refers to the time during which the temporary traffic management is checked to ensure that the signing etc is still correctly displayed and in good condition The user should estimate the number of workers likely to be required for this task Parameter Number of carriageway crossings Options Less than 10 10 to 40 More than 40 Crossings refers to a road worker moving across live traffic lanes to place temporary traffic management signs etc One crossing is when the road worker crosses the live lanes in one direction Returning across the lives lanes is a second crossing The user should estimate how many carriageway crossings are likely to be required for the setting out and clearing away of the works Timing characteristics Parameter Time taken for installation Options Less than 1
12. functions i e kind of normed evaluations with the corresponding STARs classes Alternative Road workers safety Road users safety Traffic performance n risk risk per veh log delay Alt 62 0 2006 2 75E 5 2 1143 Alt 64 0 1644 2 18E 5 2 1439 Alt 96 0 1480 1 94E 5 2 1543 Table 5 Evaluations on the set of criteria Page 42 of 51 Ef STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 road net am STARs STARs STARs RWS RWS RUS TP E 62 0 6988 s 0 oa Alt 64 0 4682 0 3971 Alt 96 0 4884 0 dem Table 6 Evaluations on the marginal utility functions From the previous table we observe that Alternative 96 is the best on the criteria RWS and RUS but it performs less well for the criterion TP However the utility score of Alternative 93 for the criterion TP is very close to the score of the other dominant solutions Consequently if we generate a ranking based on the aggregated utility score of the dominant solutions with equal weights on each criterion we observe that Alternative 96 is ranked in the first position and is located in the STARs class 3 Table 7 shows the final ranking of the dominant solutions depending on the aggregated utility score for each dominant solution and the associated STARs class Alternative Utilit STARs n agar aggr Final rank Alt 62 0 5057 3 Alt 64 0 5454 uA Alt 96 0 5627 1 Table 7 Ag
13. not used on motorways Page 22 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 road CEA net pat Figure 14 Illustrations of flagging right picture source www wegenforum nl However automatic flagging systems are being used in some countries Vehicle activated signs Vehicle activated signs are used to alert drivers to the actual speed they are travelling at Fixed or mobile systems are both used f Figure 15 Vehicle activated sign Spot enforcement police presence spot speed cameras Police enforcement is perceived to be one of the most successful methods of reducing road user speed through work zones However there are some drawbacks in that the same as flagging it can be labour intensive and costly with long term use Figure 16 Spot enforcement However semi mobile speed cameras installed for several days are more and more used typically for safety sensitive road work sites Page 23 of 51 road EA net Continuous enforcement Section control e g avg speed cameras Section control is a continuous enforcement method that uses linked Automatic Number Plate Recognition ANPR cameras to monitor the speed of the traffic through a work zone One camera continuously captures images of vehicles as they pass by The number plates are read using ANPR and when the same vehicle is recorded by another camera connected to the system the average speed of the vehicle is calculated over the known d
14. or Vehicle activated signs or Spot enforcement Standard 0 5m or Above standard 1 5m Tapers or Both Low or High performance None or Transverse pavement marking None or 1 3 25m or 3 5m 2 5m or 3m Number of alternatives 384 Number of dominant alternatives 3 Then we obtain the following evaluations for the dominant alternatives Table 11 shows the evaluations on the criteria while Table 12 shows the evaluations on the marginal utility functions i e kind of normed evaluations with the corresponding STARs classes Alternative Road workers Road users safety Traffic performance n safety risk risk per veh log delay Alt 248 0 1667 _1 67E 5 9 7728 Ait 256 0 1305 1 89E 5 9 8227 Alt 384 0 1175 1 21E 5 9 8357 Table 11 Evaluations on the set of criteria Alternative Utility Utility Utility STARs STARs STARs n RWS Alt 248 Alt 256 RUS Alt 384 Table 12 Evaluations on the marginal utility functions From the previous table we observe that Alternative 384 obtains the best evaluations on the utility functions of the criteria RWS and RUS while Alternative 248 obtains the best evaluation on the criteria TP However if we generate a ranking based on the aggregated utility score of the dominant solutions with equal weights on each criterion we observe that Alternative 384 is ranked at the first position and it is located in the STARs class
15. run continuously and equally for both day and night then one of the night time options either lit or unlit should be selected Litt means regularly spaced street lamps or equivalent are provided either along the sides or centre of the carriageway Parameter Hourly traffic distribution Options Standard Custom The user should select one of the options for which hourly distribution to use A simplified distribution has been assumed for the Standard option If the user wants to use a custom 1 Page 16 of 51 road EA net hourly distribution this can be defined in the TPData sheet to be found in the STARs EvaluationCriteria file and then the Custom option can be selected STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 The Standard traffic hourly distribution used in the tool is as follows Standard traffic histogram 14 12 2 X EEREREN ILE IMNENNI 123 45 6 7 8 9 101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 g E Figure 11 Standard traffic hourly distribution Layout characteristics Parameter Length of whole works Options Less than 500m 500 to 1km 1 to 2 km 2 to3 km 3 to 4 km 4 to 5km More than 5 km The user should estimate the total length of the works This consists of the length of the regulation advance warning and transition area the activity area and the length of the termination area The length of the whole works does not include the Far advance warning length of which is acc
16. select the option that is closest to the distance between this advance warning and the start of the regulation advance warning and transition area Parameter Lateral distance between workzone and traffic Options Minimum Standard Above Standard The lateral safety clearance is a used to separate workers from live traffic lanes and is the distance between the live traffic lane and the edge of the activity area itself These should be based on published guidelines of a code of practice The user should make a judgment based on these guidelines and select the most relevant option for the particular works If the country guidelines specify a minimum distance then chose standard as this distance is the distance recommended by the standard of practice typical standard lateral safety distances range from 0 5m to 2 5m Minimum should be selected if it is less than the guidelines recommendation Other exceptional situations e g one lane fully used as buffer area between the work zone and the traffic or all traffic sent to another carriageway could be considered as above standard Parameter Signage levels Options Minimum Optimised Optimised plus For a particular roadwork there is an important balance that must be found in relation to signage levels in terms of both road user and road worker safety To optimise road user safety adequate signs must be provided to ensure the driver is aware of the new layout and potentia
17. the STARs Evaluation Criteria file by inputting different values into the table at the top of the sheet Although customisation of the tool is possible through modification of this file it has not been designed for the general user to do so and it is highly recommended that the STARs EvaluationCriteria is not modified without full understanding of the workings of the tool If it is modified the file version number must match that of the STARs tool Page 15 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 4 Parameter user guidance This aim of this section is to provide guidance for the user for each individual parameter input to the tool Examples and illustrations are given for some parameters to provide clarification The tool has also been designed to be broadly applicable across different countries therefore some options may be irrelevant to the user others may be aggregated in a way that is not directly relevant to their country User may also find that options are available that are contrary to their country s legislation or current best practice In such cases it is intended that the user use their own best judgement to decide which option is most appropriate It should be noted that the tool is designed to provide only a representative assessment of road works schemes and that the results are intended to be used primarily for comparative purposes Base characteristics Parameter Number of lanes Opti
18. to their country s legislation or current best practice it is expected that the user should only select options that are appropriate The tool can currently be customised for use in a single country if required a possible future development of this tool could allow the user to select the country and the tool would automatically adapt as appropriate 2 Tooldescription Figure 1 shows the working structure for the STARs Road Works Evaluation Tool it is structured around the three following modules Road works project Evaluation tool and Multicriteria solver module Page 4 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 1 ROAD WORKS PROJECT BASIC PROJECT PA 3 i E RAMETERS t z t S gt s B5 Motorway type z E Road Work type AXED PA RAMETERS a VARIABLE PARAMETERS USERINPUTFORM2 Iii MULTICRITERIA SOLVER MODULE RUS RWS STARS RATING FINALOUTPUT THRESHOLDS 5 STARS RANKING fe fe 1t Alternatives 5 9 10 A STARS RANKING 8 Alternatives 3 11 13 STARS RANK Alternatives 2 8 12 2 STARS RANKING Alternatives 1 7 19 1 STARs RANKING Alternatives 4 6 14 AGGREGATION WEIGHTS Figure 1 Working scheme of the STARs evaluation tool li EVALUATION TOOL Tre Se OF CTE Road User Safety ALTERNATIVES TABLE Road Worker Safety Al Traffic Perfor mance Am rry TION OF EVALUATION TABLE DOMINANT
19. very important in this case study to obtain good performing solutions Then the values of Alternative 62 seem to indicate that it is possible to obtain a good solution without any use of physical traffic management Moreover both Spot enforcement and Vehicle activated signs are good solutions for the speed compliance management STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 2 Main characteristics Variable parameters Value from the options list Major RW 2x2 motorway Contraflow 2 lanes open Lighting conditions Speed compliance management Lane closure mechanism Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Lit night time or Unlit night time Spot enforcement or Section control Tapers or Both None or Transverse pavement marking None or 1 Number of alternatives 32 Number of dominant alternatives 1 Then we obtain the following evaluations for the dominant alternative Table 8 shows the evaluations on the criteria while Table 9 shows the evaluations on the marginal utility functions with the corresponding STARs classes Alternative Road workers Road users safety risk per veh Traffic performance log delay n safety risk Alt 8 0 1386 7 31E 7 9 1835 Table 8 Evaluations on the set of criteria Alternative Utility Utility Utility STARs STARs STARs RUS Table 9 Evaluations on the margina
20. 3 Table 13 shows the final rank of the dominant solutions depending on the aggregated utility score for each dominant solution and the associated STARs class Page 46 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Alternative Utility STARs Final n aggr aggr rank Ait 248 0 5511 8 Alt 256 0 5788 Alt 384 0 5894 1 Table 13 Aggregated score and final rank of the dominant solutions Alternative 384 has the following values for the variable parameters Speed compliance management Spot enforcement police spot speed cameras Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Above standard 1 5m Lane closure mechanism Both Use of vehicle restraint systems High performance Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 1 Width of open lane 1 3 5m Width of open lane 2 3m As a comparison these are the values for the variable parameters of Alternative 256 U 0 5788 and Alternative 248 U 5511 respectively Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Above standard 1 5m Lane closure mechanism Both Use of vehicle restraint systems High performance Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 1 Width of open lane 1 3 5m Width of open lane 2 3m
21. 338395 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 440509 X2 w s Continousi ait 00011 0 280999 3636 05 2 43962 0 882206 0 338995 0 39707 3 2 2 3 0 435751 2x2 W S Continous alt 000012 0 232002 2 9 05 2 143882 0 635995 0 407951 0 39707 4 2 2 3 0 490352 m2 W S consnousi ait 000013 0 27819 4 54605 2 114912 0 880909 0 248233 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 403098 ae ws consnous alt 000014 0 229183 3636 05 2 114312 0 641875 0 338905 0 397151 2 2 3 0 458608 22 ws continous alt 00015 0 238408 363 05 2 143882 0 623105 0 338995 0 39707 4 2 2 3 0 452414 jae M s Contnoust ait 0016 0 189411 2 9E 05 2 143882 0 721178 0 407991 0 39707 4 B 2 3 0 508746 22 ws Continous alt 00017 0 243936 5 046 05 2 114312 0 946322 0 198325 0 397151 3 1 2 1 name a2 Ws Consnous ait 000018 0 294939 4 03E 05 2 114312 0 57432 0 296651 0 397151 a 2 2 3 0 422708 b ws Continous it 000019 0 304105 4 096 05 2 143802 0 669037 0 296651 0 09707 3 2 2 3 0 42092 22 WS Cantnous alt 000020 0 255186 3 29 05 2 143802 0 597036 0 977321 0 29707 2 2 3 0 457142 22 WS Continous alt 000021 0 301345 S04E05 2 114312 0 57066 0 198326 0 397151 3 1 2 1 0305702 22 WS Contnous it 000022 0 282340 4 036 05 2 114312 0 598658 0 296651 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 43082 2 WS Continoust ait 000023 0126153 4 03E 05 2 143882 0 593375 0 296651 0 39707 3 2 2 3 0 429032 a2 wS Conbnos ait 000024 0 212595 3230 05 2 143882 0 674807 0 377321 0 39707 E 2 2 3 0 483066 X WS Contnoust it 000025 0 312232 4 296 05 2 114312 0 564439 0 271442 0 397151 3 2 2 3 oen 22 W
22. AR 0 2 0 0 5 0E SR lt 1 0E 0 75 lt R lt 1 00 1 78 70 Table 3 Thresholds for risk functions A Utility based methods are complete aggregation methods They are based on the use of utility functions which aggregate the value of all the actions on every criterion to form a single function If an evaluation on the criterion RUS is greater than the upper threshold of the class 5 STARs resp smaller than the lower threshold of the class 1 STAR then it obtains an utility value of 1 0 resp 0 0 Page 8 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 And finally the following utility functions are obtained Utility function for RUS m o bo o o o p Utility U RUS o S o O E 00 LES 2 E05 3 E05 4 E05 5 E 05 6 E 05 7 EO5 amp E 05 9 E 05 1E 04 LE 04 LE 04 Road users safety RUS Risk R Figure 2 Utility function for road user safety RUS Utility function for RWS m 9 to bd ES Utility U RWS o a e N o 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1 11 12 Road workers safety RWS Risk R Figure 3 Utility function for RWS EE LLL LL LL LL LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAALLLLL Page 9 of 51 road ERA net Utility function for TP STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Utility U TP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Traffic performance TP
23. Less than 5 5 to 20 Less than 5 10 to 40 1 hour to 10 hours 30 to 60 days 1 hour to 10 hours 1 hour to 10 hours 48000 to 72000 55 000 veh d 3000 veh hr to 5000 veh hr 3 300 veh h 120 70 km h Variable Spot enforcement or Section control More than 20 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Risk mitigation measures Far advance warning Far advance warning length Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Signage levels Delineation Lane closure mechanism Use of vehicle restraint systems Use of lookout systems Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Control through carriageway design Width of open lane 1 Width of open lane 2 Width of open lane 3 Workforce training Workforce PPE standards TM vehicle conspicuity standards Works design legislation standards Safety management system requirements Page 35 of 51 road ERA net Sign VMS 2500m in fact 5000m Standard 0 5m Optimised regional regulations Temporary barrier Variable Tapers or Both High performance None Variable None or Transverse pavement marking Variable None or 1 Yes road markings 3 25m 2 5m N A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 3 Major RW 2x3 motorway Lane closure 2 lanes open Parameter Base characteristics Number of lanes Hardshoulder Time of day Lighting conditions Hourly traffic distribution Layout cha
24. S Contnoust sie 000026 0 263236 3436 05 2 134312 0 592437 0 357154 0 397151 3 2 2 3 ooa 22 WS Continous At 000027 0272481 3436 05 2 143882 0 587154 0 357154 0 39707 a 2 2 3 0 447126 a2 WS Connnousi at 000028 0 223406 2746 05 2 143982 0 652032 0 421438 0 39707 4 3 2 3 0 490513 22 WS Cansncus ni 000029 0 269641 429605 211412 0 589776 0 271442 0 307151 3 2 2 3 023 bo Hs Cannnoust at 000020 0 220644 343605 2 114312 0 658711 0 357154 0 397151 4 2 2 3 0 473005 22 WS Continous at 00031 0224809 3436 05 2 143982 0 640221 0 357154 0 39707 4 2 2 EP aa WS Controus i 000032 0 180883 2746 05 21143902 0 738215 0 421436 0 39707 4 3 2 3 o s18007 22 WS Continous lt 00033 0 320413 4276 05 2 114312 0 559764 0 272925 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 408047 a2 ws Cantroust sie 000024 0275871 3426 05 2 134312 0 585217 0 35834 0 397151 3 2 2 3 446909 Pe WS Continous Figure 8 Example of Results worksheet The Dominance worksheet displays the outcome of the dominance calculations the dominant solutions are shown at the top of the worksheet in white whilst all the non dominant solutions are shown below in red The dominant solutions are also ranked according to their aggregated score Ee Home duet Pagelayoud omis Bala Reize View Dewloper New Tas ABBWFineReaderil AL RE Major E RUE T CEN a Sy DT TEN i al fs Value RUS Value TPD Utirunc RUtiFUNc RIUtiFune TI RWS TPD ALL UBFunc ALL alt 000D9E 0 148003 1 97E 05 2 154343 0 802663 0 485434 0 397041 5 a 2 3 0
25. SOLUTIONS Alt 1 Ak n Page 5 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Module I Road Works Project This module is the user input module where the user describes the project i e the road work scheme to be evaluated Basically data about the infrastructure the road works the layout and operational parameters must be provided For each of the three road work types considered in the following table for full details see STARs Deliverable 1 a list of relevant parameters has been identified The combination of these parameters some fixed some variable will generate the Alternatives of the problem i e all the parameter combinations of the road work scheme s to be evaluated Type Definition Mobile Mobile and intermittent road works of limited duration carried out using for example vehicles and or mobile devices such as TMA LMCC to create a safe working environment for short term access to specific sections of the road Minor Stationary i e not mobile road works that can only be carried out where conditions meet defined criteria in the appropriate national guidance Definitions may be given in terms of traffic flow visibility and or the duration of the work Major Road works that are in place for long periods where workers may be behind an approved safety barrier and or different equipment layouts or techniques are used to manage traffic and safety
26. Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Above standard 1 5m Lane closure mechanism Both Use of vehicle restraint systems High performance Use of physical traffic management None Use of TMA LMCC 1 Width of open lane 1 3 5m Width of open lane 2 3m The analysis of these values shows us that the largest width for the open lanes the largest lateral distance between workzone and traffic the use of high performance vehicle restraint systems the use of IPV and tapers as lane closure mechanism and the use of 1 TMA LMCC are redundant characteristics of the best solutions However the values of Alternative 248 indicate that the use of physical traffic management is less important Page 47 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 4 road ERA net Main characteristics Variable parameters Value from the options list Minor RW 2x3 motorway Lane closure 2 lanes open Speed compliance management Signage levels Delineation Lane closure mechanism Use of lookout systems Use of TMA LMCC Nothing or Vehicle activated signs Optimised regional regulations or Optimised plus LED VMS Cones or Panels Tapers or Both None or Automatic None or 1 Number of alternatives 64 Number of dominant alternatives 1 Then we obtain the following evaluations for the dominant alternati
27. a UK vehicle with lights and markings which meet the requirements of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Part 2 Operations Figure 27 UK works vehicle In Belgium the federal decree of May 7th 1999 concerning the signing of road work activiies and other obstructions on public roads and the regional standard tender specifications regulate the vehicle conspicuity standards see following pictures Page 30 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Figure 28 Left Works vehicle provided with 45 inclined red and white strips flashing lights A31 and D1 signs decree of May 7th 1999 Right The conspicuity of the safety vehicle is regulated by the same decree but the regional standard tender specifications provide additional rules i e must be equipped with a TMA Parameter Works design legislation standards Options Yes No The user should select Yes if there exists legislation or guidance specifying standard layouts and traffic management solutions for this type of road works for example in a national road works manual or similar Traffic Signs Manual Figure 29 UK requirements are covered in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Parameter Safety management system requirements Options Yes No The user should select Yes if there are mandatory requirements on road works associated with the management of safety These sho
28. alised with 1500 kg car impacting the VRS at 110 km h with a 20 impact angle Page 28 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Figure 24 Vehicle fitted with an LMCC Parameter Control through carriageway design Options Yes No Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works The user should select Yes if the road surface or carriageway design is used to control traffic through the roadworks Examples of this could be temporary road markings road studs etc which identify the path drivers are required to take Voorlopige markeringen bij werken Figure 25 Neutral area is used between lanes when 2 or more adjacent lanes must be deviated Source Flanders regulations Parameter Width of open lane 1 Options 2 5 3 3 25 3 5 Greater than 3 5 Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled Parameter Width of open lane 2 Options 2 5 3 3 25 3 5 Greater than 3 5 N A Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled Parameter Width of open lane 3 Options 2 5 3 3 25 3 5 Greater than 3 5 N A Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled The user should select the option closest to the width of each open lane Most countries publish guidelines or codes of practice for temporary traffic management and these should provide the minimum lane widths There are generally lane widths
29. ary in order to reduce the number of incomparabilities and then solve the problem Within STARs the additional information is provided by the use of utility Page 7 of 51 road EA net functions to aggregate the 3 independent scores and finally rank the alternatives STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Utility functions play two important roles Firstly they model the preferences on each criterion by expressing the scores in a common unit less score from 0 to 1 Within the STARs evaluation tool each utility function is characterised by a marginal utility function that shapes a performance function for each criterion and transforms rough scores from the Evaluation table into unit less and comparable scores These comparable scores are then further used as reference to attribute the stars rating The utility based method was chosen not only because the concept is appropriate for ranking problems but also because it is definitely user friendly and the aggregation procedure is understandable even by a user not expert in multicriteria decision tools Moreover the use of marginal utility functions gives the opportunity to easily later calibrate the evaluation tool to local constraints However the development of the marginal utilities are quite complex Which form should be given to these functions Which parameters should be used How could the preferences of the decision maker be expressed All of these questions were co
30. ave been made the user presses the Start button and the parameter selection screen shown in Figure 7 is now displayed By using the first tick box per row the user can set whether the parameter is variable for the calculating of alternatives or not Depending on the workzone type these tick boxes may be automatically disabled if the parameter is not relevant for that works type For fixed parameters exactly one ticked value on the right hand side is necessary For variable parameters more than one value can be ticked By using the first button Check total nr of alternatives the user can check the number of ticked values per fixed parameters and the theoretical number of alternatives will be precalculated and shown The more alternatives have to be calculated the longer this process takes It is highly recommended that the user make this check before running the calculation The button Calculation leads to the calculation process itself To leave the form and return to the main menu the button STOP can be used Page 12 of 51 road ERA net Seka ofatamaties 0 omr otatemones sae i STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 SIR Caleusten Toal Input r E Bre Cuns Tere oye Emme macondo Vittore tage Uit natin Haw sofcdsrtumn Stared Casta Paswan Dine Tans DGuda Tamsin Cete Tverd P concn gi gi ra gi gi rs Bret One rz rs ra r T moeten 5 iets Diem o
31. ber of alternatives 32 Number of dominant alternatives 1 Then we obtain the following evaluations for the dominant alternatives Table 17 shows the Page 49 of 51 road C S Y STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 oad net IA ADU eRe et evaluations on the criteria while Table 18 shows the evaluations on the marginal utility functions with the corresponding STARs classes Alternative Road workers Road users safety Traffic performance n safety risk risk per veh log delay Alt 8 0 4666 1 35E 5 1E 7 Table 17 Evaluations on the set of criteria Alternative Utility Utility Utility STARs STARs STARs n RWS RUS Alt 8 Table 18 Evaluations on the marginal utility functions Table 19 shows that Alternative 8 obtains an aggregated utility score of 0 6723 which corresponds to a STARs class of 4 Alternative Utility STARs Final n aggr aggr rank Alt 8 0 6723 4 1 Table 19 Aggregated score and final rank of the dominant solutions Alternative 8 has the following values for the variable parameters Time of day Night time Lighting conditions Lit Far advance warning VMS Signage levels Optimised plus Use of TMA LMCC More than 1 As a comparison these are the characteristics of the three best dominated solutions In other words these are the alternatives which are dominated by Alternative 8
32. but which obtain the best aggregated utility score Alternative 7 best dominated solution U 0 6642 STARs class 4 Time of day Night time Lighting conditions Lit Far advance warning VMS Signage levels Optimised plus Use of TMA LMCC 7 Alternative 4 second best dominated solution U 0 6632 STARs class 4 Time of day Night time Lighting conditions Lit Far advance warning None Signage levels Optimised plus Page 50 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Use of TMA LMCC More than 1 Alternative 6 third best dominated solution U 0 6600 STARs class 4 Time of day Night time Lighting conditions Lit Faradvance warning VMS Signage levels Optimised Use of TMA LMCC More than 1 As a consequence of the observation of these values we can conclude that for this specific case study the Lit condition during Night time is strongly associated to a good performing alternative Moreover we observe that it is logically important to prefer an Optimised plus Signage level rather than an Optimised Page 51 of 51
33. e Variable None or Transverse pavement marking Variable None or 1 Yes road markings 3 25m 2 5m N A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 2 Major RW 2x2 motorway Contraflow 2 lanes open Parameter Base characteristics Number of lanes Hardshoulder Time of day Lighting conditions Hourly traffic distribution Layout characteristics Length of whole works Type of layout Number of lanes closed main direction Number of lanes closed opposite direction Lane closure location Lanes open in main direction Lanes open in opposite direction Worker characteristics Number of workers installing clearing Number of workers in closure Number of workers for maintenance Number of carriageway crossings Timing characteristics Time taken for installation Time taken for works Time taken for maintenance Time taken for clear away Speed and flow characteristics AADT total flow for both directions Typical direction hourly flow carriageway main Free flow speed in normal conditions Work zone speed limit Speed limit units Speed compliance management Traffic HGV composition Page 34 of 51 road EA net Value from the options list 2x2 H S Continuously Variable Lit night time Unlit night time Standard 4 to 5 km regulation advance warning 2500m transition area 150m 300m 150m activity area 1200m termination area 150m Contraflow
34. e is completely cleared away The user should estimate which option is closest to the expected time taken Page 20 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Speed and flow characteristics Parameter AADT total flow for the carriageway all lanes both directions Options Less than 24000 24000 to 48000 48000 to 72000 72000 to 96000 96000 to 120000 The user should select the option which is closest to the AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic value for the road in question Parameter Typical hourly flow total flow for the carriageway in the main direction only Options Less than 1000 veh hr 1000 to 3000 veh hr 3000 veh hr to 5000 veh hr More than 5000 veh hr The user should select the option which is closest to estimated typical hourly flow for all lanes on the main carriageway only during the time the roadworks are in place If this is likely to vary significantly the highest value should be used representing a worst case scenario Note if a typical hourly flow is not known the user can estimate this as 5 8 of the AADT as defined above for peak hour works approx 0 5 for nightly works and 3 to 5 for daily works Parameter Free flow speed in normal conditions Options User input only User should input a representative speed for traffic on the road in question Note that this is not necessarily equal to the normal speed limit on the road Also note the selection of speed limit units b
35. e pavement mai None Use of TMA LMCC 1 1 1 Figure 10 Example of Summary dominant solutions worksheet It may be of interest to also consider the number of such dominant solutions a small number of dominant solutions indicates that the final choice is less dependent on the preferences of the decision maker i e weights associated to each criteria nature of the dominance relation integration of constraints The tool can in theory be customised using the STARs EvaluationCriteria file This contains one worksheet per workzone type with default settings for typical layouts and variable parameter settings To use customised settings the user can copy and change these worksheets For the use of the tool it is necessary that each one sheet with exactly name Major one with name Minor and one with name Mobile are available This is so the tool can be tailored to an individual country in terms of fixed and variable parameters for some countries standards and legislation will dictate certain parameters to be fixed whilst in others the same parameters can be varied Changing these settings means that the user would not need to input these defaults for each use of the tool Choosing the workzone type when running the tool copies the content of the relevant worksheet into the input sheet i where the default settings being used are visible The relative weighting of the three criteria can also be customised on the Results worksheet in
36. elayout Fomuat Daa Review View D veope NewTab ABEW FineReader Var T E 25 Calculate dominent solutionsusine 24 RESULT files Figure 5 STARs tool start screen Pressing the Calculate all alternatives button then produces a pop up requesting the user to input the basic specifications of the considered motorway and types of work zone types In the current version only motorways with 2 and 3 lane carriageways 2x2 2x3 are included Due to the fundamental differences between road works types at this point a distinction in major minor and mobile work zones is made Page 11 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Basic Input IV Leave RESULTS file opened 2x 3 bd I Automatic Start of dominance Test Major a Start Close all files Figure 6 First user input screen Two checkboxes are also provided on this screen if Leave RESULTS file opened is unchecked then the results spreadsheet created by the tool will be saved and closed once the calculations are completed if Automatic Start of Dominance Test is unchecked then the dominance calculation will not be performed on the alternatives i e they will not be ranked If the dominance calculation is not carried out automatically it can be done manually using the button on the first control screen see Figure 5 Both boxes should be checked for normal operation of the tool Once selections h
37. elow Parameter Work zone speed limit Options 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120 Note that some countries have a standard work zone speed limit for all work zones and the national standards should be consulted to ensure compliance with country practices It is recommended that the speed limit is set to be safe enough for the temporary layout but not reduced excessively or unnecessarily for a motorway with a usual speed of 120km h the speed limit in a work zone should be reduced by a maximum of two speed limit steps and this can be reduced further at specific locations such as a crossover if necessary The speed limit of the work zone should be used here even if the speed limit in the taper area is lower than the speed limit along the work zone this happens typically when the central reserve is crossed for a contraflow layout Parameter Speed limit units Options km h mph The user should select either km h or mph depending in which units the preceding parameters Free flow speed in normal conditions on road and Work zone speed limit have been input Parameter Speed compliance management Options Nothing just sign Radar transmitter drone Flagging Vehicle activated signs Spot enforcement police presence spot speed cameras Continuous enforcement Section control i e average speed cameras The user should make a judgement regarding the level of control or enforcement for the speed limit through the work zone If more
38. etam Tim Miestas D torenan inte aranagmaa Wiserduni owa retards nF Leea tan 2 tee ton 10 Dunes xem PEP Cem pme papmao MEE Myy E pte e u speed and ow charoctensnes Eu TER Cm eed LM T Be Tee rs re ra Tum rw Fm Tum ra Fa ra 2 Tm Dam Tun Figure 7 Parameter selection screen The results of the calculation are then written to a file named RESULTS followed by the motorway and roadwork type and date and time of calculating which is saved in the same folder as the tool spreadsheet If the dominance calculation has not been selected to run automatically then the process stops at this point Otherwise the dominance calculation will also be performed on the set of alternatives and the output also written to the RESULTS file Assuming the latter to be the case and assuming the user has also checked the box to leave the RESULTS file opened once the calculations are complete the user will be presented with the RESULTS file If the user has not opted to leave the RESULTS file open then the calculations will still be carried out and saved to the file This has three worksheets Results Dominance and Summary dominant solutions The Results worksheet lists all the possible alternatives with the users choice of fixed and variable parameters The relevant scores for road worker safety road user safety and traffic performance are documented in absolute values followed by the utility function val
39. etween workzone amp traffic Signage levels Delineation Lane closure mechanism Use of vehicle restraint systems Use of lookout systems Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Control through carriageway design Width of open lane 1 Width of open lane 2 Width of open lane 3 Workforce training Workforce PPE standards TM vehicle conspicuity standards Works design legislation standards Safety management system requirements Page 37 of 51 road ERA net Sign VMS 2500m in fact 5000m Variable Standard 0 5m or Above standard 1 5m Optimised regional regulations Temporary barrier Variable Tapers or Both Variable low or High performance None Variable None or Transverse pavement marking Variable None or 1 Yes road markings Variable 3 25m or 3 5m Variable 2 5m or 3m N A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 4 Minor RW 2x3 motorway Lane closure 2 lanes open Parameter Base characteristics Number of lanes Hardshoulder Time of day Lighting conditions Hourly traffic distribution Layout characteristics Length of whole works Type of layout Number of lanes closed main direction Number of lanes closed opposite direction Lane closure location Lanes open in main direction Lanes open in opposite direction Worker characteristics Number of workers installing clearing Number of workers in closure Number of workers for ma
40. eway the user should select Slow If there are no lane closures the user should select N A Parameter Number of lanes open in main direction Options 1 2 3 The user should input the number of lanes of traffic that remain open past the works This is regardless of whether the lanes that remain open are narrow or in a contraflow formation Page 18 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Number of lanes open in opposite direction Options 1 2 3 The user should input the number of lanes of traffic that remain open past the works for users travelling in the opposite direction Examples Lanes Lanes lane Lanes Lanes Type of closed closed closure open open layout main opposite aion main opposite direction direction direction direction tane 1 0 Fast 2 2 closure rang 1 0 Slow 1 2 closure Contraflow 3 0 Slow 2 2 Contraflow 2 0 Slow 2 3 H Contraflow 3 1 Slow 2 2 These layouts refer to road works examples in Left hand side driving countries Table 4 Examples of parameter input for different layouts Worker characteristics Parameter Number of workers installing clearing Options Less than 5 More than 5 The user should estimate how many workers are required to set out and retrieve the traffic management for the works This includes the drivers of vehicles involved in setting out or retrieval of traffic management equipment
41. ework of ENR2 this joint research project was initiated as an answer to the call Design Rapid and Durable Maintenance Methods and Techniques issued within a cross border funded trans national joint research programme The funding National Road Administrations NRA in this joint research project are Belgium Flanders Germany Denmark Finland Netherlands Norway Sweden Slovenia and United Kingdom The aim of the STARs project was to develop a methodology to score road works schemes on three interdependent aspects which are normally considered in isolation road user safety road worker safety and network performance This will encourage national road authorities and their suppliers to take a holistic approach to managing safety risk and network performance and facilitate more comprehensive ranking of alternative management strategies To achieve this objective three risk equations for performance at roadworks have been developed and included in the STARs Roadworks Evaluation Tool together with a Multicriteria Solver Module transforming the individual and absolute scores into a STARs scale This scale will be used to produce an unbiased rating of individual management strategies This document guides the user in assessing road works schemes with the STARs Road Works Evaluation Tool It briefly describes its working structure lists the project parameters to be used and guides the user step by step using screenshots and case studies The
42. gregated score and final rank of the dominant solutions Alternative 96 has the following values for the variable parameters Speed compliance management Spot enforcement police spot speed cameras Delineation Temporary barriers Lane closure mechanism Both i e IPV and tapers Use of vehicle restraint systems Low performance Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 7 As a comparison these are the values for the variable parameters of the alternatives 64 U 0 5454 and 62 U 0 5057 respectively which are the second and the third best solutions Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Delineation Temporary barriers Lane closure mechanism Both i e IPV and tapers Use of vehicle restraint systems Low performance Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 1 Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Delineation Temporary barriers Lane closure mechanism Both i e IPV and tapers Use of vehicle restraint systems Low performance Use of physical traffic management None Use of TMA LMCC 1 Page 43 of 51 road EA net From the observation of these values we can conclude that the use of Temporary barriers the use of IPV and tapers as a lane closure mechanism the use of Low performance vehicle restraint systems and the use of 1 TMA LMCC are
43. hour 1 hour to 10 hours More than 10 hours This is the time from when the first vehicle makes its first stop or arrives at the works site to begin setting out to the time when it leaves the works site when the works site is completely set out The user should estimate which option is closest to the expected time taken Parameter Time taken for works Options Less than 10 hours 10 hours to 24 hours 24 hours to 7 days 7 to 30 days 30 to 60 days 60 to 120 days 120 to 180 days 180 to 240 days 240 to 300 days 300 to 365 days gt 365 This refers to the time taken to carry out the works for which the temporary traffic management and work zone has been set out and is the time for the duration of the works activity The user should select which option is closest to the expected time taken Parameter Time taken for maintenance Options Less than 1 hour 1 hour to 10 hours More than 10 hours Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled Maintenance time is the time during which the temporary traffic management is checked to ensure that the signing etc is still correctly displayed and in good condition The user should estimate the length of time that will be required to carry out this activity Parameter Time taken for clear away Options Less than 1 hour 1 hour to 10 hours More than 10 hours This is the time from when the works are completed to the time when it leaves the works site when the works sit
44. intenance Number of carriageway crossings Timing characteristics Time taken for installation Time taken for works Time taken for maintenance Time taken for clear away Speed and flow characteristics AADT total flow for both directions Typical direction hourly flow carriageway main Free flow speed in normal conditions Work zone speed limit Speed limit units Speed compliance management Traffic HGV composition Page 38 of 51 road ERA net Value from the options list 2x3 H S Daytime Lit daytime Standard 3 to 4 km regulation advance warning 2500m transition area 150m activity area 1000m termination area 150m Lane closure More than 5 5 to 20 Less than 5 Less than 10 1 hour to 10 hours 10 to 24 hours Less than 1 hour 1 hour to 10 hours 48000 to 72000 70 000 veh d 3000 to 5000 veh hr 4 300 veh h 120 70 km h Variable Nothing or Vehicle activated signs 7 to 12 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Risk mitigation measures Far advance warning Far advance warning length Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Signage levels Delineation Lane closure mechanism Use of vehicle restraint systems Use of lookout systems Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Control through carriageway design Width of open lane 1 Width of open lane 2 Width of open lane 3 Workforce training Workforce PPE standards TM vehicle conspicuit
45. istance between the cameras If this speed exceeds the work zone speed limit an offence record is created and action can be taken using proof from the cameras and data logs STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Figure 17 Average speed check Parameter Traffic HGV composition Options Less than 7 7 to 12 12 to 20 More than 20 The user should estimate the likely composition of the passing traffic during the roadworks This should be assumed to be the same as for the usual traffic on the road taking into account any variations due to the time of day that the roadworks are taking place Again if it is likely to vary then the higher value should be used Risk mitigation measures Parameter Far advance warning Options None Sign VMS or non variable Most countries standard work zone practices require a road works ahead sign and provide recommended distances for this sign depending on the speed limit and road type Advance warning supplementing the standard road works warning signs may be provided using either mobile or fixed VMS systems Figure 18 Examples of mobile and fixed VMS left middle and non variable sign right for far advance warning Page 24 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Far advance warning length Options 500m 1000m 2500m As discussed in the previous parameter additional advance warning may be provided using VMS The user should
46. l hazards but not so many signs that will cause distraction To optimise road worker safety again adequate signs must be provided to ensure that the road users are aware of the new layout and hazards and thereby provide less of a risk to workers but not so many signs that the risk to workers of setting out the signs becomes unacceptable Note that this consideration only applies to signs that need to be physically placed on the carriageway by the workforce and not signs displayed using fixed VMS signage The user must make a judgment of how the signage levels should be rated based on a consideration of these issues Figure 19 Examples of signage Road workers placing temporary plate signs left and an example of a VMS graphic display right Example In Belgium the federal decree of May 7th 1999 establishes the Minimum requirements for signing of road work activities E 3 Page 25 of 51 road EA net However the regional standard tender specifications and their associated schemes provide some additional rules for signing of the more typical road works layouts These additional rules usually result from a consultation of experts and practitioners who analysed both road worker s and road user s safety issues A scheme designed to comply with the last update of the regional regulations could be considered as Optimised When new technologies like fixed or mobile VMS graphic display are used complementarily or
47. l utility functions Table 10 shows that Alternative 8 obtains an aggregated utility score of 0 7310 which corresponds to a STARs class of 4 Page 44 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Alternative Utility STARs Final n aggr aggr rank Alt 8 0 7310 4 1 Table 10 Aggregated score and final rank of the dominant solution Alternative 8 has the following values for the variable parameters Lighting conditions Lit night time Speed compliance management Spot enforcement police spot speed cameras Lane closure mechanism Both i e IPV and tapers Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 1 As a comparison these are the characteristics of the three best dominated solutions In other words these are the alternatives which are dominated by Alternative 8 but which obtain the best aggregated utility score Alternative 16 best dominated solution U 0 7309 STARs class 4 Lighting conditions Lit night time Speed compliance management Continuous enforcement Lane closure mechanism Both i e IPV and tapers Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 1 Alternative 4 second best dominated solution U 0 7162 STARs class 4 Lighting conditions Lit night time Speed compliance management Spot enforcement police s
48. le a matrix defined by modifying the variable parameters one by one and in which each alternative is described by the values associated to each parameter Page 6 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Module Il Evaluation Tool The second module is the core of the evaluation tool It groups the three evaluation criteria i e the three risk equations designed to assess the performance of the alternatives pertaining to the three risk areas i e road user safety road worker safety and network performance Each equation works independently but all three use the same set of parameters and feed after n runs of the evaluation tool n being the number of alternatives to assess the Evaluation Table As further described in the Deliverable 4 Final Report these criteria have been developed using state of the art literature and partners knowledge An initial calibration has also been realised Essentially the Evaluation table is the former Alternative table updated with the absolute i e non standardised scores for each alternative from the three criteria see Table 2 The next immediate step is first to select the dominant alternatives i e the best candidates solutions and second to transform the scores into comparable scales e g normalised values ranging from 0 to 1 this is part of the third module described hereafter ALT RUS RWS TP Alt 1 3 95 14 Alt 2 50 50
49. n of the more appropriate VRS is usually based on impact likeliness vehicles types and road work zone geometry The Designer shall agree the provision of safety barriers with the National Roads Authority not only the containment level but also the working width and the permitted ASI Acceleration Severity Index When selecting the VRS characteristics the designer should also consider that higher containment level barriers are stiffer and less forgiving and shall be used only when the hazard that needs to be mitigated would be greater than that due to the impact with the barrier As working widths are very much site specific the maximum working width permissible will be determined on a site by site basis TERES LL E LLL LLL XU EE O X X 3 Page 27 of 51 road EA net For the purpose of the STARs evaluation tool it is proposed that the barrier shall have at least the N2 containment Level to be classified as High performance VRS The N2 containment level is commonly used for temporary safety barrier in work zones To gain this containment level VRS must pass both the TB11 and TB32 impact tests STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Any VRS complying to a lower containment level understand a lower impact energy should be considered as a Low performance VRS in the STARs evaluation tool Parameter Use of lookout systems Options None Manual Automatic A manual lookout system is when a w
50. nsidered by the partners during the development of the evaluation tool The work achieved within the project provided the following marginal utility functions For each criterion we have defined a utility function divided into 5 sections Each section corresponds to a star class and it is defined by a threshold value Consequently the development of the marginal utility function had been mainly related to the definition of the thresholds associated to each class To do so several analyses have been conducted on the risk equations RWS RUS and TP in order to identify the values of risk associated with different levels of performance Moreover the statistical behaviour of the risk equations has been studied in order to define accurate relevant and not too rewarding thresholds At first the meaning of the classes is defined as follows 1 STAR class very low performance 2 STARS class low performance 3 STARS class average performance 4STARs class good performance 5 STARs class excellent performance Then the following thresholds are defined for each risk function Class Utility value RUS R RWS R TP t 5 STARs 1 0 0 8 1 0E lt R lt 3 0E 000 lt R lt 0 15 t lt 61E 4STARs 0 8 0 6 3 0E SR lt 6 0E 0 15 lt R lt 0 25 6 1E lt t lt 0 03 3STARs 0 6 0 4 60E SR lt 3 0E 0 25 lt R lt 0 60 0 03 lt t lt 1 08 2STARs 0 4 0 2 3 0E lt R lt 5 0E 0 60 lt R lt 0 75 1 08 lt t lt 73 70 TST
51. of dominant alternatives The dominant alternatives are the alternatives which are the best candidates for the multicriteria analysis i e if an alternative is dominant there is not another alternative in the set which has a better evaluation for a criterion Evaluating the number of alternatives and the number of dominant solutions allows us to highlight the multicriteria nature of the problem Then we analyse the results of the multicriteria analysis cf Section 2 for complementary information about the methodology From the evaluations of the marginal utility functions we generate a sorting of the dominant solutions in each STARs class Then we identify the best roadwork schemes associated to the case study Case 1 Main characteristics Variable parameters Value from the options list Speed compliance Nothing or Vehicle activated Major RW 40 days management signs or Spot enforcement long Delineation Panels or Temporary barrier 2x2 motorway Lane closure mechanism Tapers or Both 2 lanes open lU Use of vehicle restraint None or Low performance Use of the systems hardshoulder Use of physical traffic None or Transverse management pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC None or 1 Number of alternatives 96 Number of dominant alternatives 3 Then we obtain the following evaluations for the dominant alternatives Table 5 shows the evaluations on the criteria while Table 6 shows the evaluations on the marginal utility
52. ons 2x2 2x3 The user should select 2x2 if the works are being carried out on a two lane motorway or 2x3 for a three lane motorway Parameter Hardshoulder Options H S No H S The user should select H S if there is a hard shoulder on the stretch of motorway where and when the works are taking place and no H S if there is not Hard shoulder in this context is a paved strip beside a motorway for vehicles stopping in emergencies to be off the main carriageway This parameter is important from the Road Worker safety perspective it is safer for workers to have somewhere to lay out traffic management from etc if the paved strip is not sufficiently wide to allow a traffic management vehicle to pull out of the live traffic lane then the user should select no H S Parameter Time of day Options Continuously Night time Daytime The user should select one of the options depending on used the work zone scheduling A continuous work zone means it is deployed during full day and during the whole time taken for the road work A night time work zone is performed only during the night time in the tool it is set to be from 7 pm to 6 am by default and removed during the rest of day A daytime work is only carried out during the day shift hours Parameter Lighting conditions Options Lit daytime Lit night time Unlit night time The user should select the lighting conditions that will be present for the majority of the works If the works
53. orker has the specific task of acting as lookout to provide warning An automatic lookout system is when the same task is carried out automatically The user should select whichever option is most relevant Figure 23 Left Road worker on left acting as look out for worker placing cones and right Intellicone automatic warning system Parameter Use of physical traffic management Options None Rumble strips Narrow lanes with channelizing devices Transverse pavement marking Other Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works The user should select as appropriate if any physical traffic management techniques are used Options are Rumble strips Strips on the road that cause a vibration and audible rumbling through the wheels into the car body and therefore alert the driver to potential dangers Narrow lanes with channelizing devices cones cylinders panels and barriers Transverse pavement marking painted markings across the road surface intended to encourage drivers to reduce speed Other any other technique that would be categorised as physical traffic management e g speed bumps laid on the road surface Parameter Use of TMA LMCC Options None 1 More than 1 TMA is the abbreviation of Truck Mounted Attenuator LMCC is the abbreviation of Lorry Mounted Crash Cushion The TB11 test is realised with 900 kg car impacting the VRS at 100 km h with a 20 impact angle The TB32 test is re
54. ounted for in the Risk Mitigation Measures below As an example the length of the regulation advance warning zone to use when considering Belgian works regulations is as follows For major and minor works the regulation advance warning starts with the first warning signs used with a flashing light and the message Queue possible It is located between 1500m and 3000m upstream and can be included in the following large framesign For mobile works the first warning signs are WA both are fixed in the same large frame sign and are located 500 upstream the first safety vehicle Any additional far advance warning provided upstream through VMS fixed or mobile or even using non variable signs on bridges or gantries should not be considered as part of the road works length Page 17 of 51 road ERA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Type of layout Options Lane closure Hard shoulder Contraflow The user should select a road work layout type Lane closure means that one or more lane s is are closed and traffic switched to one of the open lanes Hard shoulder means one of the hard shoulders is used for traffic Finally a contraflow layout has at least one lane diverted to the opposite direction Parameter Number of lanes closed main direction Options 0 1 2 3 The user should input the number of lanes closed on the carriageway where the road works are carried out i e
55. pot speed cameras Lane closure mechanism Tapers Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 7 Alternative 12 third best dominated solution U 0 7162 STARs class 4 Lighting conditions Lit night time Speed compliance management Continuous enforcement Lane closure mechanism Tapers Use of physical traffic management Transverse pavement marking Use of TMA LMCC 7 As a consequence of the observation of these values we can conclude that for this specific case study the Lit night time condition the use of Transverse pavement making for the physical traffic management and the use of 7 TMA LMCC are strongly associated with a good performing alternative Then the use of Tapers and IPV rather than Tapers only seems quite important And finally speed compliance management appears to be the parameter with the relative lowest impact on the final result of the best alternatives Page 45 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool Case 3 User Guide October 2013 road EA net Main characteristics Variable parameters Value from the options list Major RW 2x3 motorway Lane closure 2 lanes open Speed compliance management Lateral distance between workzone amp traffic Lane closure mechanism Use of vehicle restraint systems Use of physical traffic management Use of TMA LMCC Width of open lane 1 Width of open lane 2 Nothing
56. racteristics Length of whole works Type of layout Number of lanes closed main direction Number of lanes closed opposite direction Lane closure location Lanes open in main direction Lanes open in opposite direction Worker characteristics Number of workers installing clearing Number of workers in closure Number of workers for maintenance Number of carriageway crossings Timing characteristics Time taken for installation Time taken for works Time taken for maintenance Time taken for clear away Speed and flow characteristics AADT total flow for both directions Typical direction hourly flow carriageway main Free flow speed in normal conditions Work zone speed limit Speed limit units Speed compliance management Traffic HGV composition Page 36 of 51 road EA net Value from the options list 2x3 H S Continuously Lit night time Standard 4 to 5 km regulation advance warning 2500m transition area 150m 300m 150m activity area 750m termination area 150m Lane closure Less than 5 510 20 Less than 5 10to 40 1 hour to 10 hours 7 to 30 days 1 hour to 10 hours 1 hour to 10 hours 72000 to 96000 95 000 veh d More than 5000 veh hr 5 700 veh h 120 70 km h Variable Nothing or Vehicle activated signs or Spot enforcement 12 to 20 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Risk mitigation measures Far advance warning Far advance warning length Lateral distance b
57. s Use of lookout systems Automatic Use of TMA LMCC 7 As a comparison the following values are the values of variable parameters of the two best dominated solutions The analysis of these values shows us that there is an important difference from the choice of Panels rather than Cones for a good performing roadwork scheme for this case study Alternative 56 U 0 6301 STARs class 4 has the following values for the variable parameters Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Signage levels Optimised plus Delineation Cones Lane closure mechanism Both IPV and Tapers Use of lookout systems Automatic Use of TMA LMCC 1 Alternative 48 U 0 6154 STARs class 4 has the following values for the variable parameters Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Signage levels Optimised Delineation Panels Lane closure mechanism Both IPV and Tapers Use of lookout systems Automatic Use of TMA LMCC 1 Case 5 Main characteristics Variable parameters Value from the options list Mobile RW 2x2 motorway Lane closure 1 lane open Time of day Lighting conditions Far advance warning Signage levels Use of TMA LMCC Night time or Daytime Lit daytime or Unlit night time Nothing or Sign VMS Optimised regional regulations or Optimised plus LED VMS 1 or More than 1 Num
58. than one form of compliance management is 3 Page 21 of 51 road ERA net used then the higher level of control enforcement should be selected The options are described in more detail below Nothing just sign In this situation there is no enforcement of the speed limit The driver is advised of the limit via signs but nothing more All speed compliance management systems should result in a safer work zone than signs only STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Figure 12 Speed limit signs only Radar transmitter drone Drone radar emitters are also an option and have the advantage of being low cost and easily moved However they do not actually measure a vehicles speed A drone radar transmitter is a small lightweight weatherproof device that is equipped with a sensor that activates radar detectors in vehicles They are used to make drivers with radar detectors think that there is police presence in the area They therefore work as a warning or deterrent to drivers with radar detectors in their vehicles Figure 13 An in vehicle speed limit detection device Flagging Flagging can be used to warn road users of upcoming roadworks Flaggers are placed at safe locations to motion to drivers to slow down The flagger should be placed far enough in advance of the work zone to allow road users to respond appropriately i e stop or slow down As supposed by the following illustrations manual flagging is usually
59. that are the very minimum acceptable recommended minimum and minimum for lanes that will only permit cars For example in Ireland the optimum lane width for all classes of vehicles is 3 25m This may be reduced to a minimum of 3 0m Below this HGVs and buses must be marshalled past the works The absolute minimum lane width if only cars and light vehicles are present is 2 5m I 3 Page 29 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Parameter Workforce training Options Yes No The user should select Yes if the workforce is trained qualified and competent This may be if there are mandatory national training schemes and qualifications for road workers If there are qualifications and training available but they are not mandatory then the user should make a judgement as to whether the workforce is likely to be compliant Parameter Workforce PPE standards Options Yes No The user should select Yes if there is a standard or guidance governing Personal Protective Equipment for the traffic management workforce in the relevant country Figure 26 UK road workers wearing jackets to EN471 Class 3 mandatory when working on high speed roads and trousers to EN471 Class 1 Parameter TM vehicle conspicuity standards Options Yes No The user should select Yes if there is a standard or guidance governing works vehicle conspicuity in the relevant country Examples The following photo shows
60. ues the STARs score for each the overall STARs rating and finally the aggregated utility value depending on the weights associated to each criteria The remaining columns list the input data for each alternative Page 13 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 CE I ee AL E Major Soe aac a A ER SRST SN ST SS TO SDE EI ZT OE CT CST FES ET SE FIT valve RWS Value RUS Value TPD UtiFunc RIUtiFunc RIUEIFun TITRWS RUS TPD ALL U iFuncALL Number of HardshouleTima of da SIOGUUUL 0 382455 S ME 0S 2 114312 0 541455 0 186452 0 397151 3 i z T 0375023 22 H S Continous alt 000002 0 303458 4 27E 05 2 114312 0 569453 0 272925 0 397151 B 2 2 3 0 413176 22 Ws Continous alt 000003 0 312703 4 27E 05 2 143882 0 59417 027290 0 29707 B 2 2 3 0 411388 22 Wis Continous alt 000004 0 203708 342 05 2 143882 0592188 0 35834 039 07 B 2 2 3 0 449193 a2 M s consnous alt 000005 0 209053 5 ME 0S 2 111312 0 505792 0 100482 0 397151 3 1 2 1 020135 Jae is contnousi alt 000006 0 260867 4 27E 05 2 114312 0 593791 0 272925 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 421209 Ao W S Continous ait 000007 0 270112 4 27E 05 2 143902 0 569508 0 272925 0 29707 3 2 2 3 0 419501 Jaz Wis connnousi alt 000008 0 221115 342 05 2 143952 0 657771 0 35834 0 39707 4 2 2 3 0 47106 22 Ws Continous it 00009 0 320751 A ME US 2 114912 0 559571 0 248233 0 397151 3 2 2 3 0 400985 22 Wis Continous it 000010 0 271754 3 63E 05 2 114312 0 587569 0
61. uld include having the following in place Nominated personnel with appropriate responsibility Safety policies Risk assessments Control measures for risks identified Non conformities identified and corrected Defined communication channels I LLL LLLLLALALLLLLL Page 31 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 5 Case studies road ERA net Five case studies representative of five different road work schemes are presented hereafter to illustrate and discuss the results obtained with the STARs evaluation tool Case 1 Major RW 40 days long 2x2 motorway 2 lanes open Use of the hardshoulder Parameter Base characteristics Number of lanes Hardshoulder Time of day Lighting conditions Hourly traffic distribution Layout characteristics Length of whole works Type of layout Number of lanes closed main direction Number of lanes closed opposite direction Lane closure location Lanes open in main direction Lanes open in opposite direction Worker characteristics Number of workers installing clearing Number of workers in closure Number of workers for maintenance Number of carriageway crossings Timing characteristics Time taken for installation Time taken for works Time taken for maintenance Time taken for clear away Speed and flow characteristics AADT total flow for both directions Typical direction hourly flow carriageway main Free flow speed in normal conditions
62. ves Table 14 shows the evaluations on the criteria while Table 15 shows the evaluations on the marginal utility functions with the corresponding STARs classes Road users safety risk per veh 1 51E 5 Traffic performance log delay 0 0451 Alternative Road workers n safety risk 0 1584 Table 14 Evaluations on the set of criteria Utility Utility STARs STARs STARs Utility RUS Table 15 Evaluations on the marginal utility functions From the previous table we observe that the alternatives 56 and 64 obtain the same evaluation on every criterion Consequently these solutions obtain the same values on the marginal utility functions This means that alternatives 56 and 64 are equivalent with regard to road users safety road workers safety and traffic performance Table 16 shows that these solutions obtain an aggregated utility score of 0 6326 which corresponds to a STARs class of 4 Alternative Utility STARs Final n aggr aggr rank Alt 64 0 6348 4 1 Table 16 Aggregated score and final rank of the dominant solutions Alternative 64 has the following values for the variable parameters Page 48 of 51 STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 road EA net Speed compliance management Vehicle activated signs Signage levels Optimised plus Delineation Panels Lane closure mechanism Both IPV and Taper
63. works transition zone IPV the lane is closed solely by using an impact protection vehicle this vehicle is likely to be fitted with an impact attenuator Taper the lane is closed solely by a lightweight taper formed using the delineation devices listed above with or without flashing lights Both the lane is closed by a cone taper but an IPV within the closed lane provides additional protection to the workforce Eee LLLI E 1 LL LAALLLLLLLLULAULUA A Page 26 of 51 road EA net STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Figure 21 Lanes closed by cone tapers or panels left middle and Impact Protection Vehicle right Parameter Use of vehicle restraint systems Options None Low performance High performance Note This parameter is not relevant for mobile works and will be disabled A Vehicle Restraint system VRS is a system intended to prevent a vehicle from entering the work zone If a VRS is used either temporarily or is permanent infrastructure at the works site to physically separate the traffic and the work zone then the user should make a judgment as to whether it is low or high performance QMB moveable concrete sections Varioguard 6 steel barrier Miniguard steel barrier on the left amp fixed New jersey on the right Temporary concrete barrier Figure 22 Examples of temporary VMS The performance level of a VRS is defined following the EN 1317 standards The selectio
64. y standards Works design legislation standards Safety management system requirements Page 39 of 51 road EA net Sign VMS 2500m in fact 3000m Standard 0 5m Variable Optimised regional regulations or Optimised plus additional LED VMS Variable cones or panels Variable Tapers or Both tapers IPV None Variable None or automatic None Variable None or 1 No Greater than 3 5m 3 5m N A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes STARS Evaluation Tool User Guide October 2013 Case 5 Mobile RW 2x2 motorway Lane closure 1 lane open Parameter Base characteristics Number of lanes Hardshoulder Time of day Lighting conditions Hourly traffic distribution Layout characteristics Length of whole works Type of layout Number of lanes closed main direction Number of lanes closed opposite direction Lane closure location Lanes open in main direction Lanes open in opposite direction Worker characteristics Number of workers installing clearing Number of workers in closure Number of carriageway crossings Timing characteristics Time taken for installation Time taken for works Time taken for clear away Speed and flow characteristics AADT total flow for both directions Typical direction hourly flow carriageway main Free flow speed in normal conditions Work zone speed limit Speed limit units Speed compliance management Traffic HGV composition Risk mitigation measures Far advance warning Far

STARs Evaluation Tool User Guide

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents