Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Ref: 1128-RSA-01 Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave By: Capital Traffic Prepared by: Checked by: Approved by: Andy Haunton, Audit Team Leader Jonathan Thompson, Audit Team Member Andy Haunton, Audit Team Leader Version Status Date A Audit report issued to Client 16 th June 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Commission 1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out on the proposed remodelling of Queen s Circus roundabout to incorporate on-carriageway cycle facilities. 1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by Capital Traffic in accordance with the Audit Brief confirmed by the Design Organisation on 10 th June 2014. It took place at the Great Yeldham offices of Capital Traffic on 16 th June 2014 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A. 1.1.3 At the instruction of the Design Organisation no site visit was undertaken for this audit. The Audit Team did, however, visit the site when undertaking the Stage 1 Audit during September 2013. 1.2 Terms of Reference 1.2.1 The Terms of Reference of this Audit are as described in TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. The Audit Team has examined and reported only on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented and how it impacts on all road users and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria. However, to clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation to resolve a problem the Audit Team may, on occasion, have referred to a design standard without touching on technical audit. An absence of comment relating to specific road users / modes in Section 3 of this report does not imply that they have not been considered; instead the Audit Team feels they are not adversely affected by the proposed changes. 1.2.2 This Safety Audit is not intended to identify pre-existing hazards which remain unchanged due to the proposals; hence they will not be raised in Section 3 of this report as they fall outside the remit of Road Safety Audit in general as specified in the procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. Safety issues identified during the Audit and site visit that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in Section 4 of this report. 1.2.3 Nothing in this Audit should be regarded as a direct instruction to include or remove a measure from within the scheme. Responsibility for designing the scheme lies with the Designer and as such the Audit Team accepts no design responsibility for any changes made to the scheme as a result of this Audit. 1.2.4 In accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, this Audit has a maximum shelf life of 2 years. If the scheme does not progress to the next stage in its development within this period, then the scheme should be re-audited. 1.2.5 Unless general to the scheme, all comments and recommendations are referenced to the detailed design drawings and the locations have been indicated on the plan located in Appendix B. 1.2.6 It is the responsibility of the Design Organisation to complete the Designer s response section of this Audit report. Where applicable and necessary it is the responsibility of the Client Organisation to complete the Client comment section of this Audit report. Signatures from both the Design Organisation and Client Organisation must be added within Section 5 of this Audit report. A copy of which must be returned to the Audit Team. Date: June 2014 2 Version: A
1.3 Main Parties to the Audit 1.3.1 Client Organisation Client contact details: 1.3.2 Design Organisation Design contact details : 1.3.3 Audit Team Audit Team Leader: Audit Team Member: Audit Team Observer: 1.3.4 Other Specialist Advisors Specialist Advisor Details: London Borough of Wandsworth / Transport for London Carl Morrish, Steer Davies Gleave Andy Haunton Capital Traffic Jonathan Thompson Capital Traffic None None appointed 1.4 Purpose of the Scheme 1.4.1 The scheme proposes to replace the existing off-carriageway Cycle Superhighway Route 8 facilities around Queen s Circus roundabout with segregated, signalised on-carriageway facilities. Date: June 2014 3 Version: A
2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS The proposals were subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out in September 2013 by Capital Traffic (ref: 1073-RSA-01). All problems raised in that audit are considered to have been satisfactorily addressed in the Designer s Response Report completed by Steer Davies Gleave, dated October 2013. Date: June 2014 4 Version: A
3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 3.1 JUNCTIONS 3.1.1 PROBLEM Location: Summary: General Approaching Prince of Wales Drive (W). Drivers of large vehicles may be guided towards the width restriction. The proposed spiral markings may provide more positive guidance towards Prince of Wales Drive (W) than the existing spiral markings, this arm of the junction not currently being fully incorporated into the layout. Hence, there may be an increased risk of large vehicles headed towards the width restriction on Prince of Wales Drive (W) despite ADSs warning of it on all approaches to the junction. Such vehicles would then have to reverse back into the circulatory carriageway, at risk of colliding with circulating traffc. IMAGE: GOOGLE RECOMMENDATION Provide additional warning of the width restriction around the circulatory carriageway. Design Organisation Response Rejected Rejected. The primary route through the roundabout for vehicles including large goods vehicles is north-south, therefore it is only vehicles approaching from Prince of Wales Drive (E) that may experience this issue. Existing width/weight restriction signs on Prince of Wales Drive (W) are being retained, and existing advanced warning signs on all approaches to the roundabout are also being retained, and are considered to provide adequate warning to approaching drivers. Client Organisation Comments Date: June 2014 5 Version: A
In agreement with designer s response. There appears to be sufficient forward visibility of the restriction to enable HGVs to abort their manoeuvre and continue northwards. 3.2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIES 3.2.1 PROBLEM Location: Summary: A Crossing points adjacent to combined lighting column / signal poles. Thick pole may adversely affect intervisibility between pedestrians and cyclists. At three locations there will be combined lighting column / signal poles to the right at pedestrian crossing points. In these locations the thickness of the column (given as a minimum of 229mm) over a normal signal pole may adversely affect intervisibility between pedestrians and cyclists. There may be an increased risk of collision between these two user groups as a result of poor intervisibility if either does not respect the status of their respective aspect. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that street furniture does not have an unduly adverse effect on visibility at pedestrian crossing points. Design Organisation Response Rejected Rejected. The proposed columns are to be installed with a setback of 800mm from the kerb edge, therefore pedestrians waiting at the crossings are generally expected to be standing closer to the kerb than this and visibility should not be obscured. It is noted that the combined columns are wider than standard traffic signal columns, however they are not considered large enough to fully obscure pedestrians and should not have a significant impact on road safety (in accordance with Manual for Streets 2 guidance on obstructions within visibility envelopes). It is also noted that all crossings at the roundabout are controlled, and therefore do not rely on eye contact between drivers and pedestrians in the way that zebra or uncontrolled crossings do. Client Organisation Comments In agreement with designer s response. Date: June 2014 6 Version: A
3.2.2 PROBLEM Location: Summary: Various Pedestrian crossings. Longer crossings may be difficult for slower moving pedestrians to complete in one movement. The existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are completed in two stages, there being a refuge island on each arm of the junction. These will be replaced by single stage controlled crossings, with the refuge islands being removed on all bar Prince of Wales Drive (W). The crossings will be in the region of 10m in length and are approaching the 11m length where LTN 2/95 recommends that a staggered crossing should be considered. Hence, there is a concern that slower moving pedestrians may find it difficult to complete a crossing in a single stage and either wait in the centre of the carriageway until the pedestrian phase is called up again, or continue to cross with traffic. This may increase the risk of collisions involving pedestrians occurring. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that slower moving pedestrians are able to cross in safety. Design Organisation Response Rejected Rejected. The junction has been modelled to ensure that sufficient time is allocated to enable pedestrians to cross safely at all controlled crossings. In addition the lack of central refuge islands should prevent pedestrians from attempting to wait in the centre of the carriageway. Client Organisation Comments In agreement with designer s response. 3.2.3 PROBLEM Location: Summary: B Pedestrian crossings. Push button may be difficult to locate for sight impaired pedestrians. Each of the four controlled crossings will be located on the radii of the entry / exit flaring of their respective arm. This will result in the push buttons for the crossing points on each exit flare being set back along the stem of the tactile paving, away from the dropped crossing point. This may make it more difficult for a sight impaired pedestrian to locate the push button, increasing the risk of them crossing with traffic. RECOMMENDATION An additional push button should be installed to the left of each crossing point located on an exit flare. Design Organisation Response Rejected Rejected. The signal poles incorporating the push buttons will be located 800mm back from the kerb face, which is the standard offset for traffic signal poles. The push buttons are located on the right hand side of all crossings to enable blind/partially sighted pedestrians to locate the push buttons using the stem of the tactile paving, in accordance with guidelines. Client Organisation Comments Date: June 2014 7 Version: A
In agreement with designer s response. 3.3 GENERAL 3.3.1 PROBLEM Location: Summary: C Splitter island at Prince of Wales Drive (E). Lighting column on the island may be vulnerable to being struck. There will be a combined lighting column / signal pole on the splitter island at Prince of Wales Drive (E). In this location it may be especially vulnerable to being struck by an errant circulating vehicle. A stiff structure such as a lighting column could increase the severity of injury to the occupants of an errant vehicle. RECOMMENDATION Either relocate the column to a less vulnerable location, or provide a passively safe design. Design Organisation Response Rejected Rejected. This is considered common practice to provide lighting columns within islands which are located in urban environments which are subject to a 30 mph speed limit. As the carriageway has been widened it is necessary to provide additional lighting to ensure that this area is adequately lit. It is also noted that passively safe posts, whether they be lighting columns, posts or traffic signal poles, are typically only used on roads with a speed limit of 50mph or greater. Client Organisation Comments In agreement with designer s response. End of list of problems identified and recommendations offered in this 2 Road Safety Audit Date: June 2014 8 Version: A
4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 2 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE Safety issues identified during the audit and site inspection that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in this section. It is to be understood that, in raising these issues, the Audit Team in no way warrants that a full review of the highway environment has been undertaken beyond that necessary to undertake the Audit as commissioned. *****The Audit Team has no issues to raise within this section.***** Date: June 2014 9 Version: A
5.0 SIGNATURES AND SIGN-OFF 5.1 AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents listed in Appendix A. to this Safety Audit report. The Road Safety Audit has been carried out in accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, with the sole purpose of identifying any feature that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the measures. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated suggestions for safety improvements that we recommend should be studied for implementation. No one on the Audit Team has been involved with the design of the measures. AUDIT TEAM LEADER: Name: Andy Haunton Signed: Position: Associate Director Date 16/06/2014 Organisation: Capital Traffic Address: The Old Council Yard, Hedingham Road, Great Yeldham, Essex CO9 4HS Contact: ) AUDIT TEAM MEMBER: Name: Jonathan Thompson Signed: Position: Director Date 16/06/2014 Organisation: Capital Traffic Address: Contact: The Old Council Yard, Hedingham Road, Great Yeldham, Essex CO9 4HS Date: June 2014 10 Version: A
5.2 DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage [1/2] Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisations endorsement of my proposals. Name: Position: Organisation: Carl Morrish Senior Consultant Steer Davies Gleave Signed: Dated: 18 June 2014 5.3 CLIENT ORGANISATION STATEMENT I accept these proposals by the Design Organisation. Name: Martin Hoare Position: Group Engineer Organisation: Wandsworth Council Operational Services Signed: Dated: 2 July 2014 Date: June 2014 11 Version: A
APPENDIX A Documents Forming the Audit Brief DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING TITLE 22524402-000-01 Rev A Drawing List 22524402-100-01 Rev A Existing Layout Drawing 22524402-100-02 Rev A Existing Layout Drawing 22524402-100-03 Rev - Statutory Undertakers Plant 22524402-100-04 Rev A General Arrangement Drawing 22524402-100-05 Rev A General Arrangement Drawing 22524402-100-06 Rev - Setting Out 22524402-100-07 Rev - Setting Out 22524402-200-01 Rev A Site Clearance 22524402-200-02 Rev A Site Clearance 22524402-500-01 Rev A Traffic Signals & Ducting 22524402-600-01 Rev - Earthworks 22524402-700-01 Rev B Pavements Drawing 22524402-700-02 Rev B Pavements Drawing 22524402-1100-01 Rev A Kerbs 22524402-1100-02 Rev A Footways & Paved Areas (Clearance) 22524402-1100-03 Rev A Footways & Paved Areas (Proposed) 22524402-1200-01 Rev - Existing Signage 22524402-1200-02 Rev - Existing Signage 22524402-1200-03 Rev - Existing Signage Schedule 22524402-1200-04 Rev - Proposed Carriageway Markings & Signage 22524402-1200-05 Rev - Proposed Carriageway Markings & Signage 22524402-1200-06 Rev - Proposed Carriageway Markings & Signage Schedule 22524402-1300-01 Rev - Street Furniture Requiring Electrical Connection 22524402-1300-02 Rev- Street Furniture Requiring Electrical Connection 22524402-2600-01 Rev- Proposed Isopachyte Cut & Fill 22524402-2600-02 Rev - Proposed Cross & Long Sections 22524402-2600-03 Rev - Proposed Long Sections 22524402-2600-04 Rev - Proposed Cross Sections 22524402-2600-05 Rev - Proposed Cross Sections 22524402-2600-06 Rev - Proposed Cross Sections 22524402-2600-07 Rev - Proposed Cross Sections & Utilities 032916_XX-HI-P_EX-31- Rev 00 Drainage Layout MMA12813/001 Rev R0 Street Lighting Design PRO/10/000316/01B Rev B Proposed Traffic Signals Layout 22524402-SD-02 Rev A 22524402-SD-03 Rev - 22524402-SD-04 Rev - 22524402-SD-05 Rev - Date: June 2014 12 Version: A
22524402-SD-06 Rev - 22524402-SD-07 Rev - 22524402-SD-08 Rev - 22524402-SD-09 Rev - 22524402-SD-10 Rev - DOCUMENTS DETAILS (where appropriate) Safety Audit Brief As per Stage 1 RSA Site Location Plan Traffic signal details TfL signal safety checklist Departures from standard Previous Road Safety Audits Stage 1 RSA dated September 2013 Previous Designer Responses SDG dated October 2013 Collision data Summary data Collision plot Traffic flow / modelling data Pedestrian flow / modelling data Speed survey data Other documents Date: June 2014 13 Version: A
APPENDIX B Problem Locations Date: June 2014 14 Version: A
B A B