Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Transport 153
August 2002 Issue 3
Pages 191^196
Paper 12773
Received 06/11/2001
Accepted 03/01/2002
Keywords:
codes of practice & standards/
roads & highways/safety &
hazards

Hoong-Chor Chin
Associate Professor,
Department of Civil
Engineering, National
University of Singapore

Emily Tan
Project and Development
Manager, National Safety
Council of Singapore

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

H. C. Chin and E. Tan
In recent years, road safety audits have been adopted in
a number of countries to deal with safety deficiencies in
road projects as early as possible. In keeping with this
trend, Singapore has adopted similar procedures in
reviewing its roads. This paper describes a proposed
extension of the procedures to include a more
quantitative assessment to overcome some of the
current problems faced in road safety reviews. The
outcome of the quantitative evaluation is a Road Safety
Performance Rating (RSPR) of the project with critical
components measured in terms of a Road Safety
Performance Index (RSPI) and viewed on a Road Safety
Performance Chart (RSPC). The advantages of using the
RSPR, RSPI and RSPC are given in the paper.

1. INTRODUCTION
Much has been done to influence safety on the road through
improvements in vehicle design and advances in highway
design, including development in Intelligent Transportation
Systems. On the part of highway designers and developers of
road projects, it is common that standards and guidelines are
used to generate designs that will meet acceptable safety
requirements. However, as evidenced by the occurrence of
accidents on newly-completed projects, safety deficiencies can
still be present. There are several reasons for this.
In many cases, the causes of traffic mishaps cannot be
attributed to highway design alone. Errors in judgement and
blatant disregard of traffic rules among drivers and other road
users may result in collisions on well-designed roads. Due to
physical and topographical constraints, it is also not always
possible to have a design that follows all the acceptable design
standards. In such cases, professional judgement is needed to
ascertain if the design is safe enough. Moreover, due to
changes in the road environment or developments along the
highway, safety deficiencies may also arise subsequent to the
opening of the road project. Hence, an initially well-designed
road may become unsafe with time.
In many countries, safety problems on the road are addressed
1
through black spot analysis. This requires locations with
records of a high number of accidents to be identified and
selected for safety treatment. Given budget constraints, most
highway authorities would seek a way of ranking these sites
and treat only those sites considered high on the priority list.
Transport 153 Issue 3

This approach of safety improvements is highly dependent on

accident statistics which sometimes may not be reliable since
accidents are not always reported or consistently recorded.
Furthermore, since accidents occur relatively infrequently, the
accumulation of accident occurrence means that hazards are
allowed to remain a potential problem in the intervening
period until triggered by several serious accidents. This notion
of addressing safety issues only after problems have surfaced,
makes this approach rather ethically unappealing.
Many researchers have sought a more proactive approach in
identifying safety deficiencies on the roads. One attempt with
some measure of success was the use of traffic conflict
2
techniques. Even so, such techniques require the road project
to be completed and in operation before observations of safety
deficiencies can be made. In recent years, a more proactive
approach is being developed which seeks to identify safety
problems at the early design or construction stages of the road
project. This takes the form of road safety audits.
3

AustRoads defines a road safety audit as a formal

examination of an existing or future road or traffic project, or
any project which interacts with road users, in which an
independent, qualified examiner reports on the projects
accident potential and safety performance. Such audits were
4
5
6
introduced in the 1980s and formally adopted and revised
in the United Kingdom. Similar processes were initiated in New
7
8
Zealand and Australia and in a number of countries in North
910
11
12
13
America,
Europe, Africa and Asia.
14

In Singapore, road safety audits were tried out in 1998,

following a Safety Policy statement from the Land Transport
15
Authority (LTA). A Project Safety Review (PSR) process for
road projects was put in place in 1998. Instead of using the
term safety audit, LTA has chosen the term safety review,
partly to reflect that such an exercise was not to be a form of
check amounting to an endorsement of the project. To date, a
good number of safety reviews have been conducted on road
projects at varying stages of the road development including
temporary roadworks, for example, Chin and his
1621
associates.
Although many of the reviews are considered to have some
useful benefits, there remain sceptics, many of whom regard
such reviews as an unnecessary restriction on the progress of
their projects. Issues related to acceptability, effectiveness and

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Chin Tan

191

quality of the reviews are also major concerns. The extent to

which safety reviews have raised safety awareness among all
those involved in the project may also not be clear.
The aim of this paper is to highlight some of the limitations in
the current procedure. It then proposes an extension of the
review process to include a quantitative assessment to
overcome some of the problems faced in the existing
procedure. The advantages of using the proposed quantitative
measurements to accompany a typical road safety review in
terms of a Road Safety Performance Rating (RSPR), a Road
Safety Performance Index (RSPI) and a Road Safety
Performance Chart (RSPC) are also discussed.
2. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROAD SAFETY
REVIEWS
Despite careful administration of the road project safety
reviews, the extent to which road safety levels are enhanced
still depends very much on the attitudes of the clients towards
these reviews and their response to the recommendations made.
Such a system may cause some developers and engineers to
over rely on the reviewers for safety checks, thus giving them
the liberty to exempt themselves from the responsibility of
ensuring safety in their projects. Hence, while some road
project developers may improve, others may remain indifferent
by leaving matters to the reviewers. This means that any
encouragement among road project developers to strive for
safety consciousness is, at best, indirect. Project safety reviews
may therefore remove any motivating factors that compel road
project developers and designers to strive for even safer
designs.
Moreover, because the present approach of reviewing road
projects is qualitative in nature, the reviews are often regarded
as subjective, that is, dependent on the judgement and
experience of the review team. It is not surprising that many
highway engineers, who are more quantitative in their training
and project handling, are sometimes sceptical about the value
of such reviews. Therefore, in order to produce deductive
results from the reviews, a quantitative method of evaluating
the safety level of road projects should be developed. Adopting
a quantitative approach will also give an immediate sense of
goodness of the project while a quantitative measure can
serve as a benchmark for comparison among various road
projects.
The proposed procedure in
developing a quantitative
performance measure of
safety is an extension of the
qualitative review as shown
in Fig. 1. The usual
qualitative review proceeds to
identify hazards through a
checklist, establish a
qualitative assessment of
these hazards and then
generate suitable
countermeasures to improve
safety. As shown in Fig. 1,
the data obtained from the
qualitative methods can be
192

Transport 153 Issue 3

EXISTING QUALITATIVE
PROCEDURE

QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS

Road Safety
Performance
Index
(RSPI)

Road Safety
Performance
Chart
(RSPC)

Road Safety
Performance
Rating
(RSPR)

Fig. 1. Methodology of proposed quantitative

approach

further processed to enable the hazard to be evaluated and

safety performance assessed producing an RSPI. The
performance index is then plotted on an RSPC to give a visual
impression of the level of safety of the project. The overall
project will also be given a rating summarised in an RSPR.
The safety performance of a road project is necessarily
influenced by many issues. While all of them need to be
evaluated, it would be quite meaningless to generate a whole
series of values to represent the safety level of the project. To
reduce the problem to a manageable level, the issues to be
evaluated will have to be grouped so that aggregate scores can
be obtained. There can be many possible permutations in
grouping the issues and many of them can be regarded as
appropriate. One approach is to follow the groupings suggested
in available safety audit guidelines. However, since the
intention of deriving a safety performance measure is to give
an immediate sense of the safety problems, it would be sensible
to customise the grouping of safety issues to reflect the
common safety problems encountered locally. Following this
rationale, five categories are proposed (Fig. 2). These are (a)
geometric layout and alignment, (b) road control devices, (c)
physical objects, (d) vulnerable users and (e) general and
operational issues.
2.1. Geometric layout and alignment
Issues related to geometric layout and alignment are grouped
as one because layout and alignment are permanent features of
a road which relate to the manner in which land is consumed.

Road Safety Performance categories

(pre-opening stage review)

Geometric layout
and alignment

1. Horizontal and vertical

alignment
2. Cross section
3. Roadway/
intersection layout
4. Visibility and sight
distance
5. Treatment at bridges
and culverts

Road control
devices

1. Lighting
2. Signs
3. Marking and
delineation
4. Other road control
devices

Physical
objects

1. Median barriers
2. Poles and other
obstructions
3. Crash barriers
4. Traffic signals
5. Roadside hazards
6. Natural features

Vulnerable
users

1. Pedestrians
2. Cyclists
3. Motorcyclists

General and
operational issues

1. Drainage and climatic

conditions
2. Landscaping
3. Services
4. Access points
5. Traffic management

Fig. 2. Categorised items considered in a pre-opening stage audit

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Chin Tan

Horizontal and vertical alignments, and setting out of

intersections, may influence the need for land acquisition and
can affect other associated legal matters. Once finalised,
subsequent changes to road geometry may be more difficult.
Consequently, these issues are best dealt with at the early
design or detailed design stages of the project. Attention to
details in the geometric layout and alignment at an early stage
can substantially reduce the construction costs and associated
disturbance. Furthermore, even though road safety reviews are
not meant to be a check of design standards, the issues in this
category will need to be referred to in relation to the usual
design codes.
2.2. Road control devices
The second category deals with road control devices, which
include road markings, signs, lighting and traffic signals. While
these can be easily installed and removed, the type of device
used and their installed positions can have a great effect on
road users. The safety of road users can be compromised with
excessive use or inadequate deployment of devices.
Furthermore, road control devices have to be conspicuous,
clear, comprehensive and credible, as incorrect devices can
give false messages which in turn can cause confusion and
errors in road users judgement, thereby increasing the risk of
accidents.
2.3. Physical objects
Issues related to roadside objects form the third category of
hazard assessment. Crash data in Singapore show
approximately 7% of all road accidents are the result of
vehicleobject crashes and they account for 17% of all fatal
cases. While factors such as intoxication and fatigue may be
partly responsible for accidents involving hard objects, these
physical objects are still potential hazards even for those road
users who make occasional errors on the road. The treatment
for vehicleobject accidents falls within the concept of a
forgiving highway which is designed to reduce, if not
eliminate, the severity of the crash of an errant driver.
Furthermore, there are constraints in Singapore regarding the
method of eliminating hazards arising from roadside objects.
For example, the common practice of providing clear zones,
employed in Australia and New Zealand, is virtually impossible
in land-scarce Singapore.
2.4. Vulnerable users
By grouping issues related to vulnerable users into one
category, the impact on safety on these users can be
immediately assessed. Each country has its unique group of
vulnerable road users. Pedestrians are usually one of the major
groups of vulnerable road users particularly in city and
residential areas. The situation in Singapore is different from
that elsewhere, not just because of the high pedestrian densities
but also because many pedestrians are also public transport
users as well. Pedestrians account for 12% of all accident
casualties and 30% of these are fatal cases. The changing
demographic profile also means that the problem of pedestrian
safety in Singapore is not just unique but also a dynamic one.
Pedestrian accident involvement rates are highest particularly
among the young but may become more important among the
old as the population ages. Currently, some 25% of all
pedestrian accidents involve children below 15 years old, while
20% of injured pedestrians are above 60 years old.
Transport 153 Issue 3

Among the various groups of vehicle users, motorcyclists are

the most vulnerable. Motorcyclists and their pillion riders
account for half of all road casualties in Singapore. It has also
been estimated that more than 50% of the motorcyclists in
Singapore would be injured at least once in their lifetime.
Cyclists may also be a group of vulnerable users, but the
problem is probably of less significance in Singapore than in
many Western nations because cycling is not the usual
transport mode. Because there are few cyclists, cycle lanes are
not provided on public roads. Despite the low cycle population,
safety among cyclists remains a problem because of the lack of
control over cyclist behaviour on public roads. Cycle accidents
involving injury account for about 3% of all traffic accidents.
2.5. General and operational issues
The final category of hazards relates to general and operational
issues. This deals with problems related to the general
provisions for the road project system as a whole. In most
instances, these issues, which include hazards associated with
drainage, land access and landscaping, are seldom major
concerns in Singapore. This is because these facilities are well
designed and integrated into the road project. However,
because these are sometimes managed by sub-contractors not
directly associated with the road project, problems do
occasionally arise when there are slips in coordination. Such
issues can be particularly significant in roadworks or
temporary traffic management schemes.
Under each of the five categories, there are a number of items
to be reviewed and commented on, as illustrated in Fig. 2. For
each item, there are several questions raised which seek to
identify the potential hazard. It is usual to use these questions
as a checklist of safety concerns for qualitative assessment.
Clearly the questions will depend on the type of safety audit to
be undertaken. Hence, different sets of questions are devised
corresponding to each type or stage of audit, that is, (a)
feasibility design, (b) draft design, (c) detailed design, (d) preopening, (e) existing roads and ( f ) temporary roadworks. In
general, the questions are adapted from those in the AustRoads
checklist and Transit New Zealand guidelines. Only issues and
questions relevant to Singapore are included while others
important in the local context, such as jaywalking, are added.
A sample of the questions under the category for geometric
layout and alignment in the pre-opening stage is given in
Fig. 3.
The quantitative analysis requires a score to be given to each
question raised based on the reviewers assessment of the
safety risk. An ordinal score on a scale of 0 to 5 is used based
on the criteria as shown in Table 1.
For each of the items, the average score is calculated. The RSPI
for each of the five categories is calculated by taking the
average score of the items in that particular category as shown
in Fig. 3. This method of computing the RSPI ensures that
important safety issues are captured.
To complete the quantitative analysis of safety performance
and to give a more visual presentation of the safety
performance, the scores for each of the categories are plotted
on an RSPC in the form of a star chart, as shown in Fig. 4.

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Chin Tan

193

Road Safety Performance Index Score Card

Item

Issues to be considered

Horizontal
and vertical
alignment

Cross
section

Roadway/
intersection
layout

Visibility, SD

Treatment at
bridges and
culverts

Score

Av score

Combination of the horizontal and vertical alignment

Design and function of the road

Readability of road characteristics

Visual illusions

Designed lane widths, shoulders, medians and other cross

section features

Variations in cross sectional design which could affect safety

Total traffic management features

Shoulder usage slow moving vehicles or cyclists

Length of the taper for the design speed

Spacing in the tapers

Spacing in the lanes

Type of channelling device used

Effects of horizontal and vertical alignments on visibility

requirements

Visibility intrusion by safety fences and barriers

Visibility intrusion by boundary fences

Visibility intrusion by street furniture

Visibility intrusion by parking facilities

Visibility intrusion by signs

Visibility intrusion by landscaping

Visibility intrusion by bridge abutments

Visibility of queuing vehicles

Visibility of any railway crossings, bridges and other hazards

35

50

40

25

28

Type of treatment of the bridges and culverts in place

Overall RSPI for geomtric layout and alignment category

36

Fig. 3. A typical safety performance score card

Score

Description

Failure

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Definition
There is no regard for any safety in the design/
construction of the roadway/intersection or no safety
provision is designed. It is necessary to redesign or
reconstruct this portion of the road project before
further works can be allowed to proceed.
There is general disregard of safety considerations and
severity risk is high. Urgent actions are needed to rectify
the safety deficiency.
There are some oversights in safety considerations which
may lead to moderate severity risk. Rectifications are
needed unless substantiated by a strong and valid reason.
Safety has been compromised due to site conditions or
constraints but severity risk is low. Some remedial actions
may be needed to improve safety.
There are only minor faults which may not affect safety
significantly. Rectification is not mandatory.
There is no safety problem.

Table 1. Safety risk score

194

Transport 153 Issue 3

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Each road project to be

reviewed may have several
RSPCs, depending on the
road aspects to be
highlighted. For example, one
RSPC may be used for every
major road interchange. An
overall project road
performance RSPC is also
generated for each review.
The concept of quantifying
the safety performance of a
road project can be extended
to an RSPR which is an
overall safety assessment of
the project. This is done by
computing the mean RSPI of
the various categories and
rounding up the value to
an integer. The RSPR will be
given in terms of the number
of stars, that is,
)(
)(
)(
)(
)( for
a mean RSPI above 40,

)(
)(
)(
)( for a mean RSPI
above 30 up to 40,
)(
)(
)( for
a mean RSPI above 20 up to
30, etc.
This method of quantifying
the road safety review
process presupposes that
every issue raised is of equal
concern. Based on
information gathered from
general accident records,
additional issues may be
included in the list while
those found to be no longer
important can be deleted. The
method of computation can
be further refined by
introducing some form of
weights for each issue of
concern, although it is
recognised that they may be
difficult to establish in
practice.
3. DISCUSSION ON THE
QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH
By adopting the proposed
approach of presentation, the
relative strength and
weaknesses of the safety
performance can be seen for
each component of the road
project that is reviewed. For
example, by comparing the
RSPC of different
intersections in a road
Chin Tan

costs may seek to do the

minimum to meet safety
standards. They may
393
therefore present solutions
that are barely, or even just
below, the required safety
Road control devices
General and operational issues
468
424
standard, hoping that safety
deficiencies can be
compromised or undetected.
There is also a tendency for
some contractors to rely on
287
safety auditors to discover
352
safety deficiencies for them.
Vulnerable users
Physical objects
With the safety performance
index, hitherto complacent
contractors are now
Fig. 4. A typical Road Safety Performance Chart (RSPC)
motivated to do their best,
simply to ensure their scores
are not too low, especially in comparison with other
project, intersections with poor safety performance can be
contractors.
readily highlighted along with areas in which safety has been
compromised. Furthermore, the relative level of safety
performance of the different intersections can also be
established by superimposing the overall safety performance
onto each RSPC.
4. CONCLUSION
The foregoing discussion has shown that there can be a
The RSPC also gives an immediate assessment of the level of
number of benefits in adopting a more quantitative method of
safety of the road project. This can be useful from several
assessing road safety performance. However, currently there is
perspectives.
no requirement for any safety reviews in Singapore to
incorporate the proposed quantitative evaluation, even though
First it gives an overall safety score to the road project that can
some aspects of the proposed procedure have been
1921
be easily understood by all, including the clients, contractors,
incorporated in several reviews by Chin and Tan.
It is
consultants and highway authorities. Furthermore, since the
envisaged that this form of quantitative evaluation may
road project is likely to go through a number of stages from
become more common, as seen in similar exercises to rate
22
design to construction and to operation, the safety scores at the
traffic control hazards at roadworks in New Zealand and to
various stages can be progressively monitored. This provides a
benchmark agencies operating traffic management schemes in
23
means of checking if the safety performance in the different
the USA.
components has improved with each subsequent review.
One concern in the use of the RSPR, RSPI, and RSPC, is the
Another benefit of using the RSPI is that the index can be used
level of consistency in measurement between projects. As in
as a benchmark to motivate the various parties in safety
most evaluation procedures, differences arising from
performance. Promotion of safety can be made using the RSPR
observation and judgement may result in non-unique
and RSPC by identifying road projects with high safety scores
performance scores even when a quantitative procedure is
as the best practices in the industry. By plotting the scores of
followed. Given the quantitative framework of assessment,
the industrys best and worst performance on the RSPC, it is
reviewers can be better trained to attain a more uniform and
possible to compare how well a particular project performs in
consistent level of assessment.
relation to the others.
While the proposed RSPR and RSPI are conceptually elegant,
The method also gives the highway authorities a way of
and the RSPC visually appealing, there can still be variation in
evaluating the safety performance of the contractors.
assessment from one reviewer, or rater, to another. This may be
Contractors with a consistently high RSPR for all their road
largely due to the reviewers background, training and
projects are clearly setting the safety standards for the industry
preferences, among other things. Such differences may be
while poor safety performers can be blacklisted. Furthermore,
reduced if inexperienced reviewers can be trained under
by mapping their scores in the RSPC against the best in the
experienced reviewers with the latter serving as benchmark
industry, it is also possible to indicate by how far they deviate.
instructors. A feasible extension of this quantitative
Using the rating and charts, the authorities may be able to
measurement may be to have reputable teams of reviewers set
exert pressure on the poorly performing contractors to improve
up their own RSPR and RSPI (similar to indicators used in the
their safety standard, especially in those categories where their
stock markets) so that even the performance of the safety
scores are consistently below an acceptable level.
reviewers can also be evaluated. Thus, instead of using a
universal index, the highway authorities and developers may
The pressure for the contractors to strive for higher safety
be able to express their confidence on specific RSPR, or lack of
standards is extremely important. Without a safety
it, on account of the track record and trustworthiness of the
performance index, contractors hoping to minimise project
reviewers.
Geometry layout and alignment

Transport 153 Issue 3

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Chin Tan

195

5. DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the stand of any agency or
institution mentioned in the paper.
REFERENCES
1. THE INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION.
Highway Safety Guidelines: Accident Reduction and
Prevention. IHT, London, 1990.
2. CHIN H. C. and Quek S. T. Measurement of traffic conflicts.
Safety Science, 1997, 26, No. 3, 169185.
3. AUSTROADS. Road Safety Audit. AustRoads, Melbourne,
1994.
4. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. Road Safety Audits/Advice Note
HA 42/90, and Road Safety Audits/Departmental Standard
HD 19/90. London, 1990.
5. THE INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION.
Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways. IHT, London,
1990.
6. THE INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION.
Guidelines for Road Safety Audit. IHT, London, 1996.
7. TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND. Safety Audit Policy and Procedures.
Transit New Zealand, 1993.
8. OGDEN K. W. and JORDAN P. W. Road safety audit: an
overview. Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Transport
Technical Conference, Seattle, 1993.
9. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO. Report of the Highway
407 Safety Review Committee. PEO, North York, Ontario,
1997.
10. LIPINSKI M. E. and WILSON E. M. Road safety audits a
summary of current practice. Proceedings of the Conference
on Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety in the 21st
Century. ASCE, New York, 1997, pp. 111117.
11. CARDOSO J. and BAIRRAO L. Application of Road Safety
Audits in Portugal, Safety Standards for Road Design and
Redesign. Laborataorio Nacional de Engeharia Civil, 1998.
12. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. Road Safety Audits

13.

14.

15.
16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

Guidelines for South African Road Authorities. CSIR

Transportek, Pretoria, 1997, Contract Report CR 97/025.
LAGUNZAD L. V. and GARSUTA R. T. Introducing road safety
audit in the Philippines. International Symposium on
Traffic Safety, Singapore, 1998.
CHIN H. C. The present status of road safety audit in
Singapore. AustRoads International Road Safety Audit
Forum, Melbourne, 1998.
STOLZ D. R. and Wong W. K. Building safety into the road
design process. CitiTrans Conference 99, Singapore, 1999.
CHIN H. C. Pre-opening Review of Buangkok Green. W. M.
Leow and Associates (unpublished), 1998.
CHIN H. C., OBrien A. and Tan E. Preliminary design stage
review of the upgrading of Telok Blangah Road to semiexpressway. TSM Traffic and Transport Consultancy
Services, (unpublished), 1999.
CHIN H. C. and Tan E. Pre-opening road safety review of
Jalan Jurong Kechil and Old Jurong Road. TSM Traffic and
Transport Consultancy Services, (unpublished), 1999.
CHIN H. C. and Tan E. Detailed design road safety review of
stage 1 diversion at Clementi Avenue 6/Commonwealth
Avenue West Interchange. TSM Traffic and Transport
Consultancy Services, (unpublished), 1999.
CHIN H. C. and Tan E. Preliminary design stage review of
the upgrading of Adam Road. TSM Traffic and Transport
Consultancy Services, (unpublished), 2000.
CHIN H. C. and Tan E. Project safety review pre-opening
stage road safety review for temporary traffic management.
TSM Traffic and Transport Consultancy Services,
(unpublished), 2000
TRANSFUND NEW ZEALAND. Draft Procedures for the Safety
Audit of Traffic Control at Roadwork Sites. TNZ, 1998.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIVE. Meeting the Customers
Needs for Mobility and Safety During Construction and
Maintenance Operations: Model Work Zone Traffic
Management Programme and Self Evaluation Guide. US
Department of Transportation, 1998.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 31 December 2002: email: lyn.richards@ice.org.uk; fax: 44
(0)20 7799 1325; or post to Lyn Richards, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 17 Great George Street, London SW1P
3AA.

196

Transport 153 Issue 3

Evaluating safety performance of road projects

Chin Tan