iRAP Inspection Manual
Malaysia
Version 5.3 - March 2007



iRAP international Road Assessment Program

Contents

1.Introduction

1.1The iRAP Malaysian Pilot Study

1.2The iRAP Strategic Focus

1.3The iRAP Star Rating of Roads

1.4Sample Outputs from Australian AusRAP Initiative

1.5Data Collection Background

2.Traffic Flow and Exposure Data

2.1Traffic Flow

2.2Lane Occupancy

2.3Motorcycles %

2.4Bicycle Flow

2.5Pedestrian Flow – Crossing Road

2.6Pedestrian Flow – Along Road

2.7Landmark

3.Core Rating - Road Section (Urban and Rural)

3.1Area Type

3.2Number of Lanes for Use by Through Traffic in Forward Direction

3.2.1One way/two way roads

3.3Speed Limit

3.4Lane Widths for Lanes Serving Through Traffic

3.5Shoulder Width and Type

3.5.1Paved shoulder width

3.5.2Unpaved shoulder width

3.6Horizontal Alignment

3.6.1Curvature

3.6.2Quality of curve

3.7Delineation

3.8Vertical Alignment Variation

3.9Road Condition

3.10Sidewalk Provision

3.11Land Use

3.12Side Friction

3.13Pedestrian Crossing Facilities

3.13.1Type of crossing

3.13.2Quality of crossing

3.14Facilities for Bicycles

3.15Facilities for Motorised Two Wheelers

3.16Minor Access Point Density (Urban and Semi-Urban Areas)

4.Core Rating - Protective Quality of Environment

4.1Roadside Severity Rating

4.2Major Junction/Intersection Type

4.3Median Type

5.Countermeasure Data and Comments

5.1Major Upgrade Cost Impact

5.2Comments

6.Rating Attributes not rated in Malaysian Pilot

6.1Traffic Flows

6.1.1Proportion of trucks in flow

6.2Alignment

6.2.1Sight distance

6.2.2Advanced signing

6.2.3Additional treatment

6.3Sidewalk Provision

6.3.1Discontinuities in the sidewalk

6.4Crossing Facilities

6.4.1Crossing at major junctions in urban areas

6.4.2Advanced warning signs

6.4.3Beacons marking crossing site

6.4.4Signals for pedestrians

6.5Minor Access Point Density

6.5.1Turning lanes

6.5.2Major/minor accesses

6.5.3Very high density accesses

6.6Other

6.7Roadside Severity

6.7.1Less aggressive objects

6.7.2Edge rumble strips

6.8Junction Type

6.8.1Merge lane quality

6.8.2Roundabout quality

6.8.3Nearside turn lanes

6.8.4Major/minor accesses

6.9Median Type

7.Contacts

Page 1

  1. Introduction

An estimated 1.2 million people die on the world’s roads each year with a further 20-50 million people injured. Low and middle income countries account for an estimated 85% of these deaths and injuries.

Current predictions suggest that road deaths will be the sixth leading cause of death by 2020 and the third leading cause of disability. Initiatives to counter this trend are critical and form a key focus of international organisations such as iRAP, the FIA Foundation, World Bank, World Health Organisation and the United Nations.

Safer Roads Save Lives

The international Road Assessment Program (iRAP) ( has been created to help improve road infrastructure safety in low and middle income countries in order to drive down the global road death toll. The initiative brings together a global team consisting of developing country road safety specialists; in-country teams lead by the local automobile clubs with partners from research institutions and governments.

Existing programs exist in Europe (EuroRAP Australia (AusRAP and the United States (US RAP The iRAP initiative will draw on the experience of these programs and in partnership with local experts support the development of local models and outcomes that suit the needs and road safety issues within participating developing countries.

Three pilot studies are planned as part of the initial iRAP project. They are:

  • iRAP Malaysia
  • iRAP Costa Rica & Chile
  • iRAP South Africa

Further pilot studies are planned in India and Chinaas the program develops further.

1.1 The iRAP Malaysian Pilot Study

Malaysia was selected as the preferred country for the iRAP pilot study in the Asian Region for the following reasons:

  • Strong and positive relationship between AAM, government and research partners;
  • Strong commitment to road safety at a government and policy level (e.g. Road Safety Department, Road Safety Plan of Malaysia 2006-2010); and
  • Well established crash and traffic data
  • Strong research expertise (MIROS, JKJR, Police, JKR, UPM, IKRAM).

The key project partners in the Malaysian Pilot Study are:

  • Malaysian Road Safety Department (JKJR). Director General Datuk Suret Singh and his team.
  • JKR, MHA and PLUS.
  • MIROS. Director General Professor Radin Umar and his team.
  • Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM).
  • Automobile Association of Malaysia (AAM). Chairman Tunku, Vice Chairman WanZaharuddin, Committee Member Ahmed Ismail.
  • ARRB Consulting. Project Director Rob McInerney, Data Collection Manager RichardWix, Crash Analysis and Rating Dr Joseph Affum, Data Collection Paul van Damme.
  • Australian Automobile Association. Greg Smith.

iRAP Inaugural Meeting Delegates. September 4, 2006 Putra Jaya Malaysia

1.2 The iRAP Strategic Focus

The World Health Organisation expects road deaths to rise to 2 million annually by 2020. Poor road design and layout is a major contributory factor in road deaths. The main aims of iRAP are strategic:

  • to drive the upgrading of the safety performance of routes and networks where large numbers are killed and seriously injured;
  • to generate and prioritise large, affordable, high return programmes of safety engineering counter-measures using a globally consistent methodology;
  • to operate on a scale that is cost-efficient and can be project managed to deliver reductions in the cost of death and crippling injury as measured by Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) that are economically significant;
  • to implement performance tracking so that funding agencies are able to track outcomes and outputs and enable continuous global improvement in safety performance; and
  • to provide the training, manuals and web tools to build quality and sustain national capabilities.

1.3 The iRAP Star Rating of Roads

One of the primary outputs of the iRAP initiative and the Malaysian Pilot Study will be the development of star ratings for the selected pilot network in Malaysia. The proposed pilot network is detailed below and includes Express Tollways, Federal Roads and state roads in Selangor (not shown on map).

Proposed Pilot Road Network – iRAP Malaysia

1.4 Sample Outputs from Australian AusRAP Initiative

An example of the results of the recent Australian work(Australian Automobile Association - launched in October 2006) is detailed below. Key attributes of the road that impact road safety are assessed and a “Road Protection Score” and associated star rating assigned to the road. A five star road is the safest road, through to a one star road that exhibits many poor road safety features. The full results of the Australian project are available from

Example RAP output based on the latest Australian work (released Oct 2006)

1.5 Data Collection Background

The purpose of this manual is to define the data that need to be collected to develop Road Protection Scores for the IRAP programme. This version has been based on the core international version 5.1 and adapted to meet the specific needs of the Malaysian pilot study.

  • Section 2 describes the key traffic flow data that is required and the way road sections are defined.
  • Section 3 describes the core rating fields to be collected for the Malaysian pilot study that influence the likelihood of crashes.
  • Section 4 describes the core rating fields to be collected for the Malaysian pilot study that influence the protection of the road user.
  • Section 5 describes the core rating fields required to allow an appreciation of the likely cost of likely countermeasures and other comments.
  • Section 6 describes additional factors that can be considered for inventory purposes but will not influence the overall RPS model and star ratings.

The data collection for the Malaysian Pilot Study will be collected in two phases:

  • Phase 1 will involve the survey of the 3,400km pilot network using a vehicle provided by AAM and fitted with the ARRB Group Hawkeye 2000 system.
  • Phase 2 will involve the desk-top rating of the required attributes by local team members at the JKJR office in Putra Jaya using the Hawkeye Processing Toolkit and video rating system.

Phase 1 will utilise the Hawkeye 2000 Digital Imaging System and will include 3 forward facing cameras to collect images across the network. The Hawkeye 2000 Digital Imaging System is a vehicle mounted, state of the art, imaging system with high resolution cameras (1280 x 960 pixels) capable of providing clear and specific images of the road network.

iRAP MalaysiaHawkeye 2000 AAM Network Survey Vehicle

The cameras are attached to a roof rack mounted on the front of the vehicle and positioned to give a panoramic view of the road and the road side features. The main forward view will also be calibrated to allow horizontal measurements to be made such as lane width, shoulder width and distance to road side hazards.

Images from each of the cameras will be taken every 10 metres of travel and stored to hard box which will be delivered to the rating team for the iRAP assessment.

The imaging data will be collected in tandem with a road geometry data via an ARRB Gipsitrac unit. This system combines both GPS and an inertial navigation system to measure various pavement properties including cross fall, grade, horizontal and vertical curvature. Where possible the horizontal and vertical curvature data requirements will be automatically provided and avoid the need for manual assessment by rating staff. The use of the Gipsitrac system is expected to provide a simpler and more objective measurement of these attributes across the road network. This aspect will be evaluated during the course of the pilot project and recommendations regarding its ongoing use provided.

Phase 2 will involve the rating of attributes from the video data using the Hawkeye 2000 Processing toolkit. The video images will be reviewed and rated every 50 metres initially (images every 10m can be viewed for detailed assessment of features such as intersections and pedestrian facilities if required). For rural areas where road conditions remain consistent for longer lengths an extension of this rating interval will be considered by the project team.

The rating data entry form is linked to the video data and assigns the recorded information to a unique GPS reference point for later analysis and mapping.

ARRB Group Hawkeye 2000 Processing Software (E1 – northbound towards Penang)

  1. Traffic Flow and Exposure Data

Traffic flow and exposure data should be available from existing road authority databases and will be used where available. To ensure traffic and attribute data is aligned within the GIS environment rating staff will be required to enter the required fields and note where changes occur.

Road sections

The location of the survey vehicles is defined by GPS. Most data items will be associated with specific locations or lengths of road within sections, the start and end of which will be defined by co-ordinates. Whenever possible, a physical description of the start and end point of road sections should also be recorded (e.g. “Route 32 at the junction with Route 65”).

For the purposes of analysis, a road section type attribute will be defined for each length which is analysed. This will be based on a combination of attributes – area type, number of lanes, whether divided, and access control (as indicated through junction items and minor access point density). Each road section type will reflect a typical cross section and typical traffic interactions (function and trip purpose, speed, traffic mix, side friction and turning demand). Road types will also usually be associated with a narrow range of speed limits and traffic flows.

2.1Traffic Flow

The traffic flow data should include all motorised forms of traffic (i.e. motorcyclists, cars, trucks). Where available the actual flow data should be entered(refer to Road Traffic Volume Malaysia 2005 CD – HPU). If flow data is not available then the field is left blank and the lane occupancy factor (2.2) is entered.

Description / Code / Notes / Example
Traffic Flow / N/A / Actual annual average daily traffic for the mid-block road section at the location. /
5500 veh/day
22000 veh/day
Ensure data is entered without a thousand separator.

2.2Lane Occupancy

On road sections where traffic flow data is not available a broad estimate of volume is required. To obtain this estimate a combination of estimated lane occupancy and the number of lanes (refer Section 3.2) is used. The lane occupancy level should not change frequently along the road and should represent the likely traffic throughout the day. This may require some local knowledge.

Description / Code / Notes / Example
Not recorded / 0 / Traffic volume information already recorded as part of field 2.1 above.
Low / 1 / Lane volumes < 1000 vehicles per day. / View single lane of oncoming traffic – Low volume exists if there is:
  • < 4 vehicles per minute in peak times
  • < 2 vehicles per minute in off-peak times

*convert a minute’s travel to estimated length / number of images if required.
Medium / 2 / Lane volumes 1000-5000 vehicles per day. / View single lane of oncoming traffic – Medium volume exists if there is:
  • 4-20 vehicles per minute in peak times
  • 2-10 vehicles per minute in off-peak times

*convert a minute’s travel to estimated length / number of images if required.
High / 3 / Lane volumes > 5000 vehicles per day / View single lane of oncoming traffic – High volume exists if there is:
  • > 20 vehicles per minute in peak times
  • > 10 vehicles per minute in off-peak times

*convert a minute’s travel to estimated length / number of images if required.

2.3Motorcycles %

The iRAP model accounts for the different impact road features have on motorcyclists as compared to other vehicles (cars and trucks). This relates to the stability and vulnerability of motorcyclists and the severity impacts of any crash outcomes.

The recording of the percentage of motorcyclists in the flow will allow the mix of traffic to be determined whereby:

  • Number of Motorcyclists = (Traffic volume) * (Motorcyclists %)
  • Number of Other Vehicles = (Traffic volume) – (Number of Motorcyclists)1

1 This is a calculated field and does not need to be separately recorded.

Description / Code / Notes / Example
Not recorded / 0 / Not available or alternate sources to be used
0% / 1 / No motorcyclists / Not Applicable in Malaysia!
1% - 20% / 2 / 1% - 20% of the total vehicle flow is motorcyclists /
<= 2 in every 10 vehicles are motorcyclists
21% - 40% / 3 / 21% - 40% of the total vehicle flow is motorcyclists /
2 to 4 in every 10 vehicles are motorcyclists
41% - 60% / 4 / 41% - 60% of the total vehicle flow is motorcyclists / 4 to 6 in every 10 vehicles are motorcyclists
61% - 80% / 5 / 61% - 80% of the total vehicle flow is motorcyclists / 6 to 8 in every 10 vehicles are motorcyclists
81% - 100% / 6 / 81% - 100% of the total vehicle flow is motorcyclists / 8 to 10 in every 10 vehicles are motorcyclists

2.4Bicycle Flow

The iRAP model accounts for the specific needs of bicyclists where flows warrant the provision of facilities. A broad assessment of the bicycle flow is therefore required. This should account for all cycling movements on and off-road (e.g. nearby foot path / cycle path) at the location.

Bicycle flow can be discussed at a network level with relevant staff aware of the demand at the various locations. This can simplify the rating process by defining the lengths of road with low, medium and high bicycle flow prior to commencing rating. The rating staff will then simply enter the appropriate value as they rate that section of road rather than attempting to view demand from the video.

When demand is not available in this manner video based rating will be required in accordance with the notes and examples detailed below.

Description / Code / Notes / Example
Not recorded / 0 / Not available or alternate sources to be used
Low / 1 / No cyclists or only occasional cycle movements. / View near-side traffic – Low volume exists if there is:
  • < 1 cyclist per 5 minute in peak times
  • < 1 cyclist per equivalent 10 minutes in off-peak times

*convert minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required
Medium / 2 / Regular bicycle movements at peak times and occasional cyclists at other times. / View near-side traffic – Medium volume exists if there is:
  • 1-5 cyclists per 5 minute in peak times
  • 1-5 cyclists per equivalent 10 minutes in off-peak times


*convert 5 minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required
High / 3 / High volume of bicycle movements at peak times and regular cyclists at other times. / View near-side traffic – High volume exists if there is:
  • >5 cyclists per 5 minute in peak times
  • >5 cyclists per equivalent 10 minutes in off-peak times
*convert 5 minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required

2.5Pedestrian Flow – Crossing Road

The iRAP model accounts for the specific needs of pedestrians crossing the road where flows warrant the provision of facilities. A broad assessment of the pedestrian demand for crossing the road is therefore required. This data will be used in combination with land use aspects to assess the need for pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian flow can be discussed at a network level with relevant staff aware of the demand at the various locations. This can simplify the rating process by defining the lengths of road with low, medium and high pedestrian crossing demand prior to commencing rating. The rating staff will then simply enter the appropriate value as they rate that section of road rather than attempting to view demand from the video.

When demand is not available in this manner video based rating will be required in accordance with the notes and examples detailed below.

Description / Code / Notes / Example
Not recorded / 0 / Not available or alternate sources to be used
Low / 1 / No pedestrians or only occasional pedestrian crossing movements. / View near-side traffic – Low volume exists if there is:
  • < 2 pedestrian crossing movements per minute in peak times
  • < 1 pedestrians crossing movement per equivalent minute in off-peak times

*convert minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required
Medium / 2 / Regular pedestrian crossing movements at peak times and occasional pedestrian crossing movements at other times. / View near-side traffic – Medium volume exists if there is:
  • 2-10 pedestrian crossing movements per minute in peak times
  • 1-5 pedestrian crossing movement per minute in off-peak times

*convert minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required
High / 3 / High volume of pedestrian crossing movements at peak times and regular pedestrian crossing movements at other times. / View near-side traffic – High volume exists if there is:
  • >10 pedestrian crossing movements per minute in peak times
  • >5 pedestrian crossing movements per minute in off-peak times

* land use can be used to estimate demand if required (refer right hand photo)
*convert minutes travel to estimated length / number of images if required

2.6Pedestrian Flow – Along Road