75mm High Road Humps. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/96 April 1996

Similar documents
Traffic calming on major roads: a traffic calming scheme at Costessey, Norfolk

Speed control humps - Scotland, England and Wales

Traffic Calming Special Authorisations

20mph Speed Limit Zones

"TOUCAN" - An unsegregated crossing for pedestrians and cyclists

Integration of Pedestrian Traffic Signal Control within SCOOT-UTC Systems

TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET

Traffic Calming Measures

Traffic Calming and Road Safety Provision Options Woore Village

TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLET

Traffic Calming. Traffic Calming. Traffic Calming. Traffic Calming. Traffic Calming Traffic Islands - Permanent...174

Consultation on the draft Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2015 English Heritage response, 12/06/2014

SUTTON UNDER WHITESTONECLIFFE PARISH COUNCIL

Hazardous Cattle Crossing: Use of Flashing Amber Lamps

Uniclass L534+L212. August home zones. paving PRECAST CONCRETE PAVING SOLUTIONS FOR TODAY S RESIDENTIAL STREET ENVIRONMENTS.

M621. Junctions 1 to 7 Improvement scheme. Share your views

Road Signs, Markings and Their Meaning

USING SCOOT MULTI-NODES TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN DELAY AT DUAL CROSSINGS IN BRISTOL

The Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004 and roadworks; and lane rental under the New Roads and Streetworks Act (1991) in England

ACORNS PROJECTS LIMITED

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE JOHN DOBSON STREET AREA. Traffic Regulation (Consolidation) Order 2009 (John Dobson Street Area Variation) Order 2015

Provincial Railway Technical Standards

Gold Coast. Rapid Transit. Chapter twelve Social impact. Chapter content

Air Accident Investigation Unit Ireland FACTUAL REPORT

Commissioning Director - Environment

USE OF REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT AND MODEL AIRCRAFT IN AVIATION

London Borough of Barnet Traffic & Development Design Team

M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart motorway

Movement Strategy. November On behalf of Barton Oxford LLP

The CAA Beacon at. The answer is NO they are NOT, and the reasons are set

The Blue Badge Parking Scheme

Monitoring and data acquisition for the safety related traffic information services

Proposed M9 Spur Extension. Kirkliston

CHALLENGES IN DELIVERING SAFER ROADS IN ENGLISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES

M2 Junction 5. improvements scheme. Preferred route announcement

INTERNATIONAL FIRE TRAINING CENTRE

Date: 11 th January, From: Plaistow & Ifold Parish Neighbourhood Plan - Steering Group. Plaistow & Ifold Parish Council

Your guide to adaptations

Specification for Grip blocking using Peat Dams

NATMAC INFORMATIVE INTRODUCTION OF STANSTED TRANSPONDER MANDATORY ZONE (TMZ)

YOU! Kensal Town Towpath Public Consultation WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU COULD WIN. Friday 21st December 2012 & Friday 8th February 2013

In July 2015, Scotland s First Minister announced the Scotland s commitment to sign up to the SDGs.

Walking Track Classification System Parks and Wildlife Service

Level Crossings Design and Installation

West Sussex Local Authority Parking Enforcement Agreement

Seeing To be a safe driver you need to know what's going on all around your vehicle. Not looking properly is a major cause of accidents.

Perth and Kinross Council Development Control Committee 27 August 2008 Recommendation by Development Quality Manager

Smart Motorways Programme

Wolverhampton City Council

Consultation on Draft Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England

Flammability of Interior Materials

A140 study and Major Road Network

4 Are you responding on your own behalf or on behalf of an organisation or group?

Research Briefing Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management in Wales

TR 2181 Issue C July 2001

Annex 1 Revised TEE, AMCB and Public Accounts Tables Print Version

M54 to M6/M6 Toll Link Road Public consultation

ADVICE ON Cattle Grids

Helicopter Performance. Performance Class 2 - The Concept. Jim Lyons

INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLATION, USE AND MAINTENANCE YSEN

Queen s Circus Roundabout

Communication and consultation protocol

Harrie Leenders Fuga el - Instructions for Installation, Use and Maintenance INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLATION, USE AND MAINTENANCE

Introduction of traffic control measures to improve congestion and air quality within the town centre

OFFWELL PARISH COUNCIL

Proposed Changes to Inverness Airport s Airspace The Introduction of Controlled Airspace and Optimisation of Instrument Flight Procedures

RESPONSE TO AIRPORT EXPANSION CONSULTATION 27 MARCH 2018 Submitted online by Helen Monger, Director

FOREWORD. July 2006 July Release 1.0 Page 2

Hitch Hiker Operating Instructions

A31 Ringwood improvement scheme

Garstang Town Council

Riverside Heights, Norwich. Travel Plan

SECTION B AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION

Public consultation exhibition

Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents. and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage,

Date 24/10/2011. Date 04/11/2011. Date 25/10/2011. Date 10/11/2011. Date 25/10/2011. Date 25/10/2011. Date 10/11/2011.

Off-Site Solutions. CPM Headwalls. Concrete for Life

Runway Roughness Evaluation- Boeing Bump Methodology

SUBMISSION ON THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE 139/05 TO SECTION 6.2 (RUNWAYS) OF THE PART 139 MANUAL OF STANDARDS AERODROMES

Travel Policy. This policy should be read in conjunction with the Travel Procedure & Guidelines and Travel Expense Procedure & Guidelines documents

lighting road markings Part 2 td 89/08 use of passively safe signposts, lighting columns and traffic signal posts to bs en 12767: 2007

Progress and strategy. Derek Rees, CLOCS Project Director

Old Limberlost Sports Club, Butlers Road, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B20 2NT

Navigation event 28 km north-west of Sydney Airport, NSW 11 January 2007

02/06/2016. TSRGD 2016: Signals and cycling. Sally Gibbons Senior Engineer Traffic Division 2 June Legislation. IHE Traffic Signal Design Course

FUTURE AIRSPACE CHANGE

Chapter 14 Route Window C12 Mile End Park and Eleanor Street shafts. Transport for London

SOUTH GLOS COUNCIL UPDATE FOR SUSCOM - JANUARY 2016

49 CFR PART 571 FMVSS No. 302 FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS

During all other times operators are required to use the designated run-up locations for run-ups above idle power.

Safety & Airspace Regulation Group Code of Practice. Issue 13, August 2013 CAP 1089

ECOLABELLING of Portable Rechargeable Batteries

MINUTES OF SURVIVE GROUP EXECUTIVE MEETING HELD ON 13 TH FEBRUARY 2017

Jordan Civil Aviation Requlatory Commission (CARC) JCAR-OPS-1 - SUBPART- Q. FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS 01-Jun-2014

South East Wales Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club Ltd

GI/GN7612. Miscellaneous Guidance on Level Crossings. Railway Group Guidance Note

FIJI AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION CIRCULAR

East West Rail Consortium

Today we are showing you the early designs to improve the A27 at Arundel and we would like to hear your views on our options.

Regulatory Committee

Transcription:

Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/96 April 1996 75mm High Road Humps Introduction The Highway (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 and the Road Humps (Scotland) Regulations 1991 allowed considerable flexibility in the use of road humps over previous legislation. They provided for the use of both flat top and round top road humps, and permitted the height to be varied between 50mm and 100mm. The regulations resulted in a large increase in the number of road humps being installed, though these were mainly 100mm high. A consequence was the incidence of vehicles grounding on these humps. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) on behalf of the Driver Information and Traffic Management Division (DITM) of the Department of Transport (DOT), were commissioned to investigate grounding problems. In a separate, but related study, TRL compared the effects on speed reduction between lower height (75mm) and full height (100mm) road humps. The investigations revealed that use of road humps with a height of 75mm would substantially lessen the likelihood of grounding. Additionally, when compared with 100mm high humps, little or no erosion in speed reduction resulted, and providing suitable spacing was employed, 75mm high humps would be applicable in 20mph zones. The purpose of this leaflet is to highlight the findings of the studies.

Grounding UK legislation for vehicle construction does not require a minimum clearance to be provided between the underside of a vehicle and the carriageway surface. Some sports cars, for example, have unladen ground clearances as little as 100mm to 120mm. When fully laden, ground clearances are approximately 30mm lower. Limousines of the type used for weddings and funerals can have an unladen ground clearance of around 100mm, and when fully laden the clearance can be down to 75mm. As most limousines have a longer wheel base, they can almost straddle and standard 3.7m long round top hump, and the shortest length flat top humps. Other studies have shown that longitudinal straddling also occurs with short length speed cushions. In these cases normal wheelbase cars can be affected as well. To limit the possibility of grounding, investigations suggest that road humps generally should not exceed 75mm in height. In the case of "raised junctions" (where a flat top road hump covers the whole of the junction area) the height is less critical than the ramp gradients. (In Scotland, special authorisation is needed for road humps across junctions.) In the case of narrow speed cushions (around 1.6m wide, or less) it can be appropriate to reduce the height to 65mm. To minimise the likelihood of grounding, it is recommended that ramp gradients for full width flat top road humps (including raised junctions) should not be steeper than 1:10. For speed cushions, the on/off ramps should not generally be steeper than 1:8. There are proprietary cushion designs incorporating curved ramps, with gradients which overall are steeper than 1:8. Little information is available on the grounding effects of curved ramp speed cushions, and it may be advisable to seek the views of the particular manufacturers of these devices.

The plateau length of flat top humps can also influence whether grounding will occur or not. Where longer wheel base vehicles (such as limousines) are likely to operate, it is suggested that the minimum plateau length should be 4m. For buses, a minimum plateau length of 6m is preferred by bus operators. In the case of speed cushions, a minimum plateau length of 1.8m or an overall minimum length of 3m, should prevent most cars being able to straddle the cushion length ways, and reduce the risk of grounding. There have been examples of caravans and trailers grounding on humps. Using lower height humps (75mm or 50mm) can generally obviate such problems. However, on some occasions grounding has arisen because the "jockey" wheel on the towing arm has not been properly adjusted, or the caravan/trailer is incorrectly loaded. This can result in the jockey wheel or the towing arm coming into contact with the humps. Humps on inclines The main concern with humps on inclines, particularly for heavy vehicles, is that vehicles travelling uphill can encounter an "actual gradient" of 1 in 5 or greater when traversing the humps. Grounding can also occur. Buses can be particularly vulnerable, with the front of the vehicle grounding on the plateau when going downhill, and the rear when going uphill. Investigations by various local authorities suggest that appropriate "uphill" ramp gradients are 1:15 for inclines of about 1:10, with shallower ramp gradients (up to 1:35) for steeper inclines. "Downhill" ramp gradients of 1:10 to 1:13 appear to be satisfactory. The "uphill" ramp, is defined as the first ramp met when a vehicle is moving uphill, and the "downhill" ramp is the first ramp met when a vehicle is going downhill. Comparison of 75mm and 100mm standard road humps Information on some 88 road hump schemes was collected by TRL. The majority of these schemes have 75mm high road humps, but some 100mm high road humps with shallow gradients were also included. A variety of materials had been used for the construction of the road humps, including asphalt, block paviours, pre-cast concrete, and recycled rubber. Ramp gradients for the 75mm flat top humps were generally 1:10 to 1:15. Some were shallower, the shallowest being 1:25. The plateau lengths varied from 2.5m to 25m. The round top humps were a standard 3.7m long. Effects on buses 75mm high road humps generally create less discomfort for bus occupants than 100mm, high humps, and using shallower gradients will also help to reduce this further. However, the shallower the gradient the less the speed reduction. Trials by local authorities indicate that 1:15 gradients were noticeably more comfortable than 1:10 ramps, but little further gain was obtained with gradients between 1:15 to 1:20. It would appear, therefore that 1:15 would be a suitable compromise to obtain reasonable speed reduction without excessive discomfort. Speed measurements The overall average mean speeds found for vehicles crossing 75mm high humps were similar to the speeds for vehicles crossing 100mm high humps.

Speeds at flat top humps The mean crossing speeds for 75mm flat top humps with gradients of 1:10 to 1:15 were between 10mph to 15mph with an overall average of 12.8mph. Previous studies had shown that the average speed across a 100mm high flat top hump, equipped with similar ramps, was 13.6mph. The results did not show any relationship between mean traffic speed and ramp gradient within the range 1:10 to 1:15. However, higher speeds did occur with gradients of 1:20 or less. This suggests that ramp gradients of 1:15 or more are generally required at 75mm humps to obtain mean hump crossing speeds under 16mph. The effect of the plateau length on mean speeds over the humps was minimal. The mean speeds at humps with plateau lengths of 6m to 6.5m were 1 mph faster than plateau lengths of 2.5m to 3m. Speeds at round top humps Mean crossing speeds for 75mm high round top humps were between 12 to 18mph, with an overall average of 14.7mph. The overall 85th percentile speed was 19mph. Previous studies of 100mm high round top humps found an overall average mean speed of 13.8mph. Speeds between humps Installing 75mm humps reduced mean and 85th percentile speeds between the humps by an average of about 10mph. The overall average mean speed between 75mm high humps, with ramp gradients of 1:10 to 1:15, was 20mph. The overall average 85th percentile speed was 25mph. Mean speeds along a road before the humps are installed, and hump spacings after installation, were found to have more effect on mean "after" between-hump speeds than hump type and hump height (over the height range 75mm to 100mm). For the same longitudinal spacing, speeds between 75mm high humps (flat or round top) were around 1 to 2mph higher than speeds between 100mm high humps. Humps spacing and "before" speeds The "before" speed is very significant in determining resultant speeds after the humps have been installed. The higher this is the higher the after speed will be. Table 1 shows the estimated hump spacing required to achieve target mean "after" speeds between humps. This, for example, indicates that for sites with "before" speeds of 30mph, 75mm high humps with a spacing of 60m will reduce speeds between humps to below 20mph. These results represent average values, and exact target mean "after" speeds are unlikely to be achieved because of site to site variations.

Effects on noise and emissions Whilst the primary purpose of road hump schemes will be to reduce speeds, and hence accidents, the environmental effects of such schemes should also be taken into account. In order to limit adverse noise or excessive emissions, the objective should be to discourage harsh acceleration and deceleration, and encourage smooth traffic flow. This may be achieved by minimising the "speed difference". "Speed difference" is defined as the difference between the mean speed at the hump, and the mean speed between humps. The closer the spacing, the smaller the "speed difference" is. For example, spacing in the region of 50m to 60m will generally result in a "speed difference" of around 5mph. Round top 75mm high humps appear to result in speeds of 2mph higher at the hump than 75mm high flat top humps using gradients between 1:10 to 1:15. Therefore, for a given hump spacing, round top humps have a smaller speed difference. The benefits of reducing possible adverse environmental effects need to be balanced against the public acceptability of providing a larger number of humps, and the cost of providing these. Trials in York suggest that the number of humps is less important than the degree of discomfort encountered. "Upstands" on hump ramps Upstands at the foot of hump ramps, however small, should be avoided as they can cause an unnecessary "jolt" to vehicle occupants, and discomfort (and possible danger) to cyclists. They may also result in an increase in noise. Technical Enquiries Traffic Management Division Department for Transport 2/06 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Tel: 020 79442974 References Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 The Road Humps (Scotland) Regulations 1990 TRL Project Report 186 - Traffic Calming - Road hump schemes using 75mm high humps The Grounding of Vehicles on Road Humps - David C Webster, Traffic Engineering and Control July/August 1993 TR Project Report 18 - Road Humps for Controlling Vehicle Speeds TRL Project Report 32 - Speed Control Humps - A Trial at TRL TRL Report 174 - The Environmental Assessment of Traffic Management Schemes: A literature review TRL Report 182 - Traffic Calming - Four Schemes on Distributor Roads Traffic Advisory Leaflets (TAL) are available to download free of charge on the Department for Transport website www.dft.gov.uk Sign up for a free e-mail alert to receive notification when a new TAL is published by sending an e-mail to tal@dft.gsi.gov.uk with the subject line "subscribe". To obtain a printed copy of this and/or other TAL's, contact: DfT Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7NB. Telephone 0870 122 6236. Fax 0870 122 6237. E-mail: dft@twoten.press.net The Department for Transport sponsors a wide range of research into traffic management issues. The results published in TAL's are applicable to England, Wales and Scotland. Attention is drawn to variations in statutory provisions or administrative practices between the countries. Within England, enquiries should be made to: Traffic Management Division, Department for Transport, 2/07 Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR. Telephone 020 7944 2478. E-mail: tal@dft.gsi.gov.uk