LANE IN MALAYSIA NORFAIZAH MOHAMAD KHAIDIR ROAD ENGINEERING & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

A SAFETY REVIEW OF MOTORCYCLE LANE IN MALAYSIA

NORFAIZAH MOHAMAD KHAIDIR ROAD ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER (REER) MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH (MIROS) 23 APRIL 2019

2 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

INTRODUCTI ON

3 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

3.5% 4.3% 6.2% 6.8% 9.1% 12.1% 13.1% 14.9% 38.1% 46.5% 55.3% 59.0% 63.9% 72.4% 77.9% 82.8% 84.2% 86.1% 94.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UK Australia Sweeden Denmark Korea Switzerland Jepun Singapore China Malaysia Philippines Thailand Bangladesh India Laos Indonesia Cambodia Myanmar Vietnam Vehicle composition (%) Country Passenger Car Motorcycle Bus Heavy Vehicle Others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

INTRODUCTION

(Source: WHO, 2015)

Motorcycle is the most affordable and viable option of transportation in low and middle income countries

4 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 11.3 12.07 12.82 13.76 14.73 15.8 16.81 17.97 19.02 20.19 21.31 22.59 23.43 25.1 26.3 27.6 28.1 30.0 5.61 5.84 6.16 6.57 7.01 7.46 7.94 8.49 8.94 9.44 9.99 10.59 11.04 11.63 12.09 12.68 12.90 13.7 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Number of motorcycle fatalities Number of registered vehicles (million)

Year

Total registered vehicle and motorcycle fatalities

Registered Vehicle Registered Motorcycle Motorcyclist Fatalities

INTRODUCTION

Registered motorcycle are almost half (47%) of the total registered vehicle Combined with the increasing trend of motorcycle fatalities, motorcycle safety is of high interest

6%  2% 

(Source: JPJ & PDRM, 2019)

5 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

5

In 2018, out of 6,284 road fatalities, 4,128 fatalities were recorded by motorcyclist and pillion rider Approximate of RM5.8 million losses due to motorcycle fatalities only

INTRODUCTION

(Source: PDRM, 2019)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Economic loss (RM) Year

Economic loss from MC fatalities

Economic loss from MC fatalities 66% 6,284 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% Road fatalities (number) Motorcyclist fatalities (%) Year

Total road fatalities and % of motorcyclist fatalities

% motorcyclists fatalities Road Fatalities

6 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

Mixed traffic system Non-exclusive motorcycle lane (NEMCL) Exclusive motorcycle lane (EMCL)

❖ leads to complex manoeuvres and interactions between road users ❖ Built separately from the traffic carriageway (physical barrier) ❖ Lane width: 3.0-3.5 m ❖ Reduce crash by 39% ❖ Total length: 262.5 km (< 1% of the overall road length) ❖ a part of the traffic carriageway, separated with non-physical barrier ❖ Lane width: 2.0 – 2.5 m ❖ Total length: 199.2 km ❖ May reduce crash risk by 80%

INTRODUCTION

7 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

NON-EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE LANE IN MALAYSIA

Alor Setar - Butterworth Pontian – Batu Pahat Muar Kelantan

8 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE LANE IN MALAYSIA

FR02 KESAS GUTHRIE PUTRAJAYA

9 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

MOTORCYCLE LANE IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Suramadu Bridge, Indonesia Bali Mandara Toll Road, Indonesia Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), Phillipines Zhongxiao Bridge, Taiwan

10 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

ISSUES & CHALLENGES OF MOTORCYCLE FACILITIES IN MALAYSIA

• 1. Under-

utilisation

• 2. Lack of

comprehens ive crash data

• 3. Various

design of egress/ingre ss

• 4. Limited

extensive study

11 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

UTILISATION & COMPLIANCE OF MOTORCYCLE LANE

Compliance Non-compliance Misuse

Study conducted in 2016

12 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 FHW KESAS LDP-PTJ NL-BT SBA PTN-BP JB-ME(BP) BW-AS KT-KTN KB-PP Number of motorcycle Location

Motorcycle lane utilisation by location

Compliance Non-Compliance

12

MC volume per hour (% compliance)

NEMCL EMCL

UTILISATION AND COMPLIANCE RATE OF MOTORCYCLE LANE

887 (41%) 577 (80%) 511 (98%) 296 (95%) 202 (89%) 1515 (0%) 723 (0%) 532 (0%) 1333 (65%) 2689 (72%)

The highest volume:

• NEMCL= KB-

PP

• EMCL = FHW

Most of NEMCL compliance rate > 80% except KB-PP (41%) Compliance rate for FHW is 72% & KESAS is 65%.

13 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

MISUSE ( FOR NEMCL ONLY)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PTN-BP JB-ME (BP) BW-AS KT-KTN KB-PP Number of vehicle Location Number of misuse vehicle by location Weekday Weekend

❖ NEMCL provided along traffic carriageway with non-physical barrier (road marking). Thus, there are potentials of other vehicle to encroach into the EMCL - Possible conflict is high. ❖ The highest misuse ▪ Weekday : KT-KTN ▪ Weekend : BW – AS ▪ Overall : BW – AS

14 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 20 40 60 80 100 120 Federal Highway KESAS Batu Pahat - Senggarang Pontian Ayer Baloi 85th percentile speed (km/h) Location

85th percentile speed of motorcycle

Motorcycle lane Traffic carriageway

SPEED OF MOTORCYCLE ON MCL & TRAFFIC CARRIAGEWAY

The risk posed by motorcycle using the main carriageway is higher due to higher speed and exposed to the other traffic mode

Speed limit on 90 km/h Speed limit 60 km/h

Exclusive motorcycle lane Non-exclusive motorcycle lane

15 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

SATISFACTION INDEX

Study conducted in 2016

16 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

USING AND NOT USING MOTORCYCLE LANE

Using 83% Not Using 17%

Total sample: 1,835 312 respondents are not using motorcycle lane (17%)

22% 2% 4% 6% 8% 45% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Not safe (Crime) Influence Distance Time Crowded No MC lane provided Others Percentage (%) Factors

Factors for not using motorcycle lane

Respondent who not using MC

• 1. No motorcycle lane provided at their

area

• 2. Motorcycle lane is not safe

45 % 22% Respondent who use EMCL

• 1. To avoid congestion on the traffic

carriageway

• 2. Safety purposes

43 % 29 % Respondent who use

• 1. To avoid congestion on the traffic

carriageway 26 % 47 %

17 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

PERCENTAGE OF SATISFIED RESPONDENTS

❖ NEMCL

• Security attribute has the highest

percentage of satisfied respondents (50%)

• Pavement surface condition has

the lowest percentage of satisfied respondent (22%)

• Butterworth–Alor Setar road has

the lowest average score for NEMCL ❖ EMCL

• Roadside safety attribute has the

highest percentage of satisfied respondents (18%)

• Pavement surface condition has

the lowest percentage of satisfied respondent (3%)

• Federal Highway has the lowest

average percentage of satisfied

Location Percentage of satisfied respondent (%) Paveme nt surface Main- tenanc e Roadsi de safety Lightin g Egres s/ ingres s Securit y NEMCL PNTN-BP

13 50 58 50 56 58

JB-MLKA

33 33 42 33 42 33

BW-AS

24 42 24 24 36

KT-KTN

24 18 41 35 44 53

KB-PSR PTH

42 26 58 53 53 68

OVERALL

22 30 48 39 44 50

EMCL FHW

2 8 10 3 6 4

KESAS

8 13 14 5 10 9

LDP-PTJ

5 9 17 4 9 7

NL-BT

11 33 11 17 11

SBA

22 17 11 8 6

18 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

SATISFACTION INDEX

46% 60% EMCL NEMCL Percentage of score (%) Motorcycle lane type

Overall Satisfaction

• Total number of respondents =

1,835

• Overall satisfaction score for

EMCL is 46% while for NEMCL is 60%

19 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

COMMON SAFETY DEFICIENCIES ON NEMCL

Pavement surface Misused Improper termination Parked vehicle Faded road marking Water ponding Non-standard lane width

20 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

COMMON SAFETY DEFICIENCIES ON EMCL

Pavement surface Dark tunnel Various design of ingress/egress Roadside hazard Horizontal & vertical alignment Rubbish on the lane Unmaintained guardrail Debris

21 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

EGRESS & INGRESS

Study conducted in 2017

Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle EMCL – motorcycle traffic only

Egress

Point of exiting from EMCL

Ingress

Point of entering into EMCL

22 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

Entry radius

• f 90 degree

Entry radius < than 90 degree, Length < 15m Presence of auxiliary lane Entry radius < than 90 degree, Length > 15m Skewed or Y- shape access

TYPES OF EGRESS & INGRESS

EMC L Directio n Egres s Ingres s F02 KL – Klang 17 19 Klang – KL 16 19 KESA S KL – Klang 21 18 Klang – KL 15 19

23 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

EGRESS

23

24 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

24

INGRESS

25 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

INGRESS

25

26 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle EMCL – motorcycle traffic only Egress: Point of exiting from EMCL Ingress: Point of entering into EMCL

• Capacity of the road network are closely related with the capacity at access and capacity at access

influenced by critical gap value

• Critical gap: minimum time interval between two consecutive vehicles in the major road that allows

entry of one minor road vehicle

• Longer critical gap means less vehicle can pass through the access and therefore capacity will reduce. It

may create back lock traffic condition on the departure lane.

• Shorter critical gap value may contribute for more vehicle to pass through the access and increase in the
• capacity. However, it may lead to safety issue where poor gap acceptance decisions will increase the

likelihood of crash to happen.

CAPACITY

27 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

Only critical gap for passenger car was proposed in HCM (6.2 sec at intersection and 4.1 sec at roundabout) Motorcycle are small in size – do not require much space for maneuvering Motorcycle have no body frame – field of view is not restricted Critical gap for motorcycle remains as the missing link It is anticipated that critical gap for motorcyclist is shorter than passenger car

CRITICAL GAP VALUE

28 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

E1-01: KESAS – Subang Jaya E3-01: Padang Jawa E4-01: Amcorp Mall I1-01: Susur Batu Tiga I3-01: Seksyen 7 I4-01: Susur NPE E1-02: KESAS – Taman OUG E3-02: Subang Airport E4-02: Ke Bulatan Kayangan I1-02: Petronas Shah Alam I3-02: Setia Jaya I4-02: Dari Bulatan Kayangan

EGRESS INGRESS

High volume of motorcycle at access Straight & flat terrain No sight distance issue

STUDY LOCATION

29 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

• Video was mounted on a special pole

with height 3m – 4m from ground

• Capture the motorcyclist exiting or

entering EMCL and type of oncoming vehicle on the intended lane Video recording technique

• 2 hours peak (7.00 – 9. 00 am)
• 2 hours off-peak (10.00 – 12.00 am)
• A total of 48 hours video playback

Time

DATA COLLECTION

30 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

• Gap time: The difference between arrival time (t1) and crossing time (t2),

measured in seconds.

• Other data collected alongside are accepting or rejecting gaps decision and type of
• ncoming vehicle on the intended lane.

Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle e.g. passenger car and heavy vehicle EMCL – motorcycle traffic only Egress Ingress t1 t2 t1 t2

DATA COLLECTION

31 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

Statistic Egress Ingress Accep t Reject Accep t Reject Number of

• bservations

1462 70 1826 180 Minimum (sec) 2.50 0.00 2.50 0.15 Maximum (sec) 57.31 30.19 46.66 36.43 Mean (sec) 8.26 2.92 6.61 1.05 Accept n (%) Reject n (%) Grand total N Egress 1462 (95) 70 (5) 1532 Passenger Car 1240 (96) 54 (4) 1294 Heavy Vehicle 138 (91) 13 (9) 151 Motorcycle 84 (97) 3 (3) 87 Ingress 1826 (91) 180 (9) 2006 Motorcycle 1826 (91) 180 (9) 2006 Grand total 3288 (93) 250 (7) 3538

RESULTS

• A total of 3,538 samples were observed

(1,532 samples at egress and 2,006 samples at ingress)

• 93% were observed to accept the available gap

time at the first attempt and only 7% of rejection was observed

• Rejection at ingress (9%) is higher than at egress

(5%). This is inline with findings on critical gap value where longest gap obtained in this study was at ingress.

• At egress, higher rejection was observe when
• ncoming vehicle is heavy vehicle (9%)
• Mean gap at egress is higher than ingress – less

risky gap accepting behaviour at egress

32 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

RESULTS

The value corresponding to probability of 0.5 is termed as critical gap value where motorcyclist have equal chances to accept

• r reject the gap time.

Using binary logit models, the critical gap was found to be 2.28 seconds when the

• ncoming vehicle at egress is passenger

car. The critical gap determined from Model 2 was 2.42 seconds which is 0.14 seconds higher than critical gap value when the

• ncoming vehicle is passenger car.

The critical gap determined from Model 3 was 2.43 seconds which is slightly higher than critical gap value at egress when the

• ncoming vehicle is heavy vehicle (the

longest critical gap time)

33 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

Wider angle of entry at egress and ingress leads to a lower critical gap – contrary to the forced complete stop required at typical intersection Small size of motorcycle required less space for maneuvering – easier for motorcycle to squeeze through any

• ffered gap or occupy

lateral space efficiently Motorcyclist choose longer critical gaps when oncoming vehicle is heavy vehicle - size arrival effect which indicates that the larger vehicle was perceived closer Big size of heavy vehicle reduce the available lateral space Longest critical gap was determined at ingress – motorcycles on the EMCL were found to ride more than one-line within the same lane – limited lateral space

RESULTS

34 Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane

The high volume, increasing growth and crash rate indicating the needs for more motorcycle lane Inconsistency designs of egress and ingress needs to be reviewed Critical gap for motorcycles is smaller than for four-wheel vehicles Applying motorcycle’s critical gap is believed to be able optimise the space required for the construction of EMCL

CONCLUSION

THANK YOU

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research Lot 125 – 135, Jalan TKS 1 Taman Kajang Sentral 43000 Kajang Selangor, Malaysia Tel: +603 8924 9200 Fax: +603 8733 2005 Site: http://www.miros.gov.my Contact: norfaizah@miros.gov.my