Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd - Marrickville involved... · Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd Detail Design...

Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd

Detail Design (Stage 3) Road Safety Audit ReportJuly 2014

S A M S A C O NS U LT I N GT R A N S P O R T P L A N N I N G & T R A F F I C E N G I N E E R I N G

Inner West Light Rail ExtensionStreetscapes Project: Hercules StreetPedestrian Crossing, Dulwich Hill

samsa__________________________________________________ consulting

Document ID: Hercules Ped Xing_RSA Hercules Street Pedestrian Crossing, Dulwich HillDetail Design (Stage 3) Road Safety Audit Report

Samsa Consulting Pty LtdTransport Planning & Traffic EngineeringABN: 50 097 299 71746 Riverside Drive, Sandringham, NSW 2219, AUSTRALIATelephone: (+61) 414 971 956 or (+612) 9583 2225E-mail: [email protected]: www.samsaconsulting.com

© Samsa Consulting Pty LtdThis document is and shall remain the property of Samsa Consulting Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which itwas commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any formwhatsoever is prohibited.


Document ID: Hercules Ped Xing_RSA Hercules Street Pedestrian Crossing, Dulwich HillDetail Design (Stage 3) Road Safety Audit Report

Contents1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 11.2 Report Structure ................................................................................................ 2

2. Audit Details ................................................................................................. 32.1 Audit Methodology ............................................................................................. 32.2 Audit Administration........................................................................................... 32.3 References & Documentation Audited ............................................................... 3

3. Project Audit ................................................................................................. 54. Formal Audit Statement ............................................................................. 28


1Document ID: Hercules Ped Xing_RSA Hercules Street Pedestrian Crossing, Dulwich HillDetail Design (Stage 3) Road Safety Audit Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Inner West Light Rail Extension (IWLRE) is a 5.6 km expansion of the Ultimo PyrmontLight Rail Transit system from the existing terminus at Catherine Street, Lilyfield to a newterminus at Dulwich Hill. The proposed route follows the line of a disused freight corridor andwill comprise of 9 new stops which are Leichhardt North, Hawthorne, Marion, Taverners Hill,Lewisham West, Waratah Mills, Arlington, Dulwich Grove and Dulwich Hill Interchange.As part of the Dulwich Grove Stop works, a shared path was constructed on the western sideof the rail corridor between New Canterbury Road and Hercules Street to enable customers toaccess the stop from the south. This shared path created a pedestrian desire line acrossHercules Street where the shared path ends, necessitating a pedestrian crossing facility.A raised pedestrian crossing was designed by Cardno and has now been constructed.Community members have raised concerns with the newly constructed crossing with respectto sight distance.Options have now been developed to further improve the safety of this crossing. The optionsdeveloped are as follows:

1. Raised pedestrian crossing across the Hercules Street on the southern side of theKintore Street junction and removal of existing crossing.

2. Marked pedestrian crossing across Kintore Street, west of Hercules Street andremoval of existing crossing.

3. Maintain existing crossing but include two speed humps on the southbound approachto the bridge and crossing.

4. Relocate the existing crossing to the bridge crest area (slightly to the north) and createa slanted crossing to allow for the bridge expansion joints – remove existing crossing.

5. Amend the existing crossing to create a staggered, two-stage crossing with thesouthbound crossing located on the crest area for improved sight distance.

A pre-construction detail design road safety audit is required to examine safety performance ofthe proposed pedestrian crossing options within Hercules Street at the Dulwich Grove Stop –refer to Figure 1 below for the audit area.The scope of the audit includes formal examination of five proposed options for the pedestriancrossing within Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill. As per standard road safety audit procedures, allpotential road users (including, but not limited to school children, parents / carers, parents withprams, elderly grandparents and high school aged siblings) surrounding land uses (especiallyDulwich Hill Primary School) and peak activity periods (including, but not limited to pick-up anddrop-off times, ie. 8:45 am to 9:30 am and 3:00 pm to 3:45 pm) have been taken into accountin the assessment of road safety and in the determination of issues identified.This report details an independently undertaken Detail Design (Stage Three) road safety auditfor the subject Project. The audit was undertaken by Samsa Consulting Pty Ltd, TransportPlanning & Traffic Engineering Consultants. The report has been prepared for Cardno as partof its design review and assessment.



Figure 1: Audit Area and Location

1.2 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is presented as follows:Chapter 2 describes details of the audit undertaken including the methodology,

administration and documentation audited.Chapter 3 details the safety issues identified and audit findings.Chapter 4 provides a formal audit statement.



2. Audit Details

2.1 Audit Methodology

A road safety audit is “... a formal examination of a future road or traffic project or an existingroad, in which an independent, qualified team reports on the project's crash potential andsafety performance” (Austroads 2009).The detail design (Stage Three) audit followed a standard practice in identifying safety relatedissues of the proposed project design options. It involved a site visit in addition to a desktopassessment of relevant design documentation and other related project material.Standard issues such as road network approach conditions, intersection layouts, sightdistance, speed zones, safety barriers, road alignment, linemarking and signage (amongstothers) were assessed with respect to safety.The audit is structured around the standard safety inspection checklist provided in Austroads’“Guide to Road Safety, Part 6: Road Safety Audit” and RTA’s (RMS) “Accident ReductionGuide – Part 2: Road Safety Audits”.An audit commencement meeting was held with the Cardno Project Manager and Transportfor NSW Officer where background information on the detailed design development andpertinent operational issues for the subject project were discussed.Site visits to the project area were undertaken on Thursday 17th July, Friday 18th July andTuesday 22nd July 2014, including during the adjacent school’s peak drop-off and pick-upperiods. The detail design desktop audit was undertaken between Friday 18 th July andTuesday 22nd July 2014. An audit completion meeting was held at the completion of the roadsafety audit report.

2.2 Audit Administration

Cardno Project Manager: Dean AtkinsonTransport for NSW Officer: Tyler LaitinenRoad Safety Auditors: Alan Samsa (RMS Accredited Level 3 Lead Road Safety Auditor)

(Auditor ID: RSA-02-0056, Certification Expiry 1/07/2015) Carolyn Samsa (RMS Accredited Level 3 Lead Road Safety Auditor)

(Auditor ID: RSA-02-0585, Certification Expiry 14/06/2016)

2.3 References & Documentation Audited

· Austroads “Guide to Road Design: Part 4A – Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections atGrade (Second Edition)”, October 2010

· Austroads “Guide to Road Design: Part 4B – Roundabouts” August 2009· Austroads “Guide to Road Safety, Part 6: Road Safety Audit”, January 2009· Austroads “Guide to Road Design Part 4: Intersections and Crossings – General”, 2009· Cardno “Stage 2 Detailed Design Report, Inner West Light Rail Extension, Streetscapes

Design ”, June 2014



· Cardno design options “Sydney Light Rail, Inner West Extension, Streetscapes Design:Dulwich Grove Stop”:- Sheet 600358-8110: General Arrangement Plan – Option 1, 9/07/2014- Sheet 600358-8111: Sections – Option 1, 9/07/2014- Sheet 600358-8120: General Arrangement Plan – Option 2, 9/07/2014- Sheet 600358-8130: General Arrangement Plan – Option 3, 9/07/2014- Sheet 600358-8140: General Arrangement Plan – Option 4, 9/07/2014- Sheet 600358-8150: General Arrangement Plan – Option 5, 10/07/2014

· Cardno “Traffic & Transport Engineering Report – Marrickville Council, Inner West LightRail Extension Streetscapes Design – Stage 2 Detailed Design”, 22 October 2013

· Letter from Dulwich Hill Public School Parents & Citizens Association “Dulwich GrovePedestrian Crossing, Hercules Street, Dulwich Hill – New Safety Audit”, 20 June 2014

· John Holland “Risk Review, Requirement for Traffic Barriers on Existing Overbridges: IWE-01-0001-RW-0001”, undated

· RMS “Guidelines for Road Safety Audit Practices, Part 1: Road Safety Audit”, July 2011· RTA “Accident Reduction Guide – Part 2: Road Safety Audits”, 2005· RTA “Delineation Guidelines: Parts 1 to 19 & Appendices A & B”, assorted dates· Standards Australia “AS 1742.1 – 2003: Manual of uniform traffic control devices, Part 1:

General introduction and index of signs”, 2003· Assorted site photographs



3. Project Audit

The audit of the project detail design options focussed on providing an independentidentification of potential safety hazards, regardless of current practices, standards andoperations, to allow Cardno to identify a preferred design option.In categorising and prioritising identified safety issues, a risk assessment process wasadopted. Risk assessment is the overall process of risk identification, analysis and evaluation.Preliminary risk ratings for each identified issue are assessed based on subjectiveprofessional judgement by the Road Safety Audit team with guidance from Section 4.8 C ofAustroads “Guide to Road Safety, Part 6: Road Safety Audit”. The Austroads’ documentprovides an indication of the level of risk and what response may be appropriate. Theidentified road safety issue is first categorised based on its likely frequency of occurrence andseverity (‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ of crash potential) – refer to Figures 3.1 and 3.2 below(extracted from the Austroads’ document).

Figure 3.1: Likely Frequency of Issue

Figure 3.2: Likely Severity of Issue

An appropriate risk rating is then selected from the risk categories in the risk matrix with apreferred treatment approach for each risk rating (refer to Figures 3.3 and 3.4 below, bothextracted from Austroads).



Figure 3.3: Risk Matrix

Figure 3.4: Treatment Approach

The audit of the detail design options identified a number of potential road safety issues. Thesafety audit process requires that the safety issues identified during an audit be acknowledgedby the Audit Team and accordingly responded to by Cardno. The issues are characterised byoption and according to their risk, and detailed in Table 3.1 following.It should be noted that not all road safety issues identified may necessarily be within the scopeof the project design area. This is because while the scope of the audit is generally within theproject area described earlier, to complete a full audit of the project, the approaches andtransitions to the project area were also audited to identify potential safety issues that mayaffect road safety within the project road sections. Therefore, some road safety issues that areoutside the project design area may be the responsibility of the relevant controlling roadauthority.

samsa____________________________________________________________________________________ consulting


Table 3.1: Identified Safety Issues

For completion by Cardno

No. Description of Road Safety IssuePreliminary Risk

Rating(low, med, high)

RoadSafety

CategoryAction by Response

OPTION 11. There were numerous observations during all site visits (morning and

afternoon) of drivers / parents and school children behavinginappropriately along Hercules Street near the school access gate.Examples include:· illegal U-turns and other unsafe driving manoeuvres;· feral parking / stopping within the road travel lanes;· pedestrians crossing Hercules Street uncontrolled; and· pedestrians entering / exiting cars uncontrolled.

Medium - High(Occasional /

Serious)

Roadusers

Cardno Cardno will advise TfNSW who canadvise the school.For pedestrian safety we suggest thatthe school gate, just east of the bridge,be permanently closed.The school could consider a new accesspoint opposite the proposed crossing atKintore Street.The proposed pedestrian crossing atHercules Street, just west of KintoreStreet, will assist with reducing theuncontrolled crossing of Hercules Street.






RoadSafety


2. The proposed pedestrian crossing location (across Hercules Streetsouth of Kintore Street) does not provide a direct connectionbetween the existing school access (at the southern end of theschool site near the Hercules Street curved alignment) and the newlight rail access path, which may result in uncontrolled pedestrianmovements across Hercules Street on or nearer the bridge area.


Serious)

Pedestrianinfrastructu

re

Cardno For pedestrian safety we suggest thatthe school gate, just east of the bridge,be permanently closed.The school could consider a new accesspoint opposite the proposed crossing atKintore Street.The proposed pedestrian crossing atHercules Street, just west of KintoreStreet, will assist with reducing theuncontrolled crossing of Hercules Street.The proposed pedestrian crossing willcreate an alternative pedestrian desireline along Kintore Street and NewCanterbury Road for pedestriansaccessing the light rail stop.

3. Vehicles parking along both sides of the bridge area have no accessto the adjacent footpaths for drivers and/or passengers due toproposed pedestrian fencing and/or existing safety barriers. Thiswould result in pedestrians walking along the road to access thefootpath.


Serious)


re

Cardno For pedestrian safety we suggest thatthis area be sign posted as “NoStopping”.






RoadSafety


4. The relatively new concrete safety barrier on the western (light railstation) side of the bridge appears to be too short to protect an errantsouthbound vehicle along Hercules Street (ie. travelling straightthrough the curved alignment) from the drop onto the light rail trackcorridor. Moreover, the northern end treatment for the steel guardrailon the eastern side of the bridge is sub-standard.

Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers

Cardno Agreed. The concrete safety barrierwas designed and constructed byAurecon & John Holland. We will adviseTfNSW accordingly.The W-beam guardrail on the easternside of the bridge is existing. We willdiscuss provision of a suitable leadingterminal end treatment with TfNSW.

5. For southbound Hercules Street travel, there is no curve warning andassociated advisory speed signage (as proposed for Option 5) forthe left curve alignment approaching the bridge overpass.

Medium(Occasional /

Minor)

Delineation Cardno Agreed, provision of these signs couldbe included prior to the curve.

6. The unrestricted parking along the eastern side of Hercules Streetnear the school pedestrian access has been observed to be used allday by light rail commuters, which results in parking impacts andadds pressure to school pick-up and drop-off movements alongHercules Street.

Low - Medium(Occasional /

Limited)

Roadusers

Cardno Agreed, we will discuss the provision oftime restricted parking with TfNSW andCouncil.

7. There would be some loss of parking, which may result in impactselsewhere and add pressure to pick-up / drop-off movements alongHercules Street.


Limited)

Roadusers

Cardno There would be a loss of approximately6 car park spaces in the vicinity of theproposed pedestrian crossing due tomandatory no stopping restrictions.

8. School speed zone signage on the right side of the Kintore Streetapproach to Hercules Street is obstructed by street tree foliage.School speed zone signage for the Beach Road entry to HerculesStreet is too close to the Hercules Street entry where drivers may not


Limited)

Traffic signs Cardno The school speed zone sign at KintoreStreet is existing. We will discusspossible trimming of vegetation withTfNSW, RMS & Council.The school speed zone sign at HerculesStreet near Beach Road is existing. We






RoadSafety


be able to suitably see it when concentrating on turn manoeuvres.Consideration should be given to reinforcing the school speed zoneto aid in speed control along Hercules Street.

will discuss possible repeater signs withTfNSW, RMS & Council.

9. The issue of sun-glare during certain periods of the year at sunset(for westbound travel exiting the curve onto the crest over the railline) and sunrise (for eastbound travel entering the straight adjacentto the school) is applicable, eg. pavement markings, warning andadvisory signage may be difficult to sight due to sun glare.Monitoring may be required and consequent treatments consideredat a later stage.


Limited)

Roadalignmentand cross

section

Cardno These are existing conditions. Driverstypically slow down and adapt to the siteconditions.

10. There is no advance warning of the pedestrian crossing for vehiclesturning right out of Kintore Street into Hercules Street.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)

Trafficsigns

Cardno There is an existing “PedestrianCrossing Ahead” warning sign attachedto a power pole within Kintore Street.

11. The proposed advance pedestrian crossing sign for northboundtravel would be better located within the straight approach to the newcrossing, ie. further to the east.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)

Trafficsigns

Cardno The advance warning sign is positionedapproximately 80m prior to the crossingin accordance with AS1742.10-2009Figure 1. We cannot relocate furthereast due to the existing drivewaycrossing which is approximately 50mlong. We could shift slightly 5m to thenorth to an existing power pole.






RoadSafety


12. The proposed ‘No Stopping’ sign on the eastern (school) side ofHercules Street, north of the new crossing, should show a double-headed arrow as the ‘no stopping’ zone would interact with theexisting crossing and continue to the north.

Low(Improbable /

Limited)

Trafficsigns

Cardno Agreed, we will add to the design.

13. It is assumed that appropriate street lighting will be provided at thecrossing location as per applicable standards.

Note only Lighting Cardno Yes, appropriate street lighting will beprovided.

14. It is assumed that any proposed landscape planting will grow and/orbe maintained to suitable sizes so that sight distances affecting roadsafety are not compromised.

Note only Landscaping

Cardno Yes, appropriate low height landscapingwill be planted.

15. Consideration should be given to applying for school crossingsupervisors at the pedestrian crossing point in order to reinforce andcontrol conflicting movements – application is required to be made toNSW RMS and is based on warrants being met.

Note only Pedestrianinfrastructu

re

Cardno Noted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response




Serious)

Roadusers

Cardno Cardno will advise TfNSW who canadvise the school.For pedestrian safety we suggest thatthe school gate, just east of the bridge,be permanently closed.The school could consider a new accesspoint near Kintore Street.

2. The proposed pedestrian crossing location (across Kintore Streetwest of Hercules Street) does not provide a direct connectionbetween the existing school access (at the southern end of theschool site near the Hercules Street curved alignment) and the newlight rail access path, which may result in uncontrolled pedestrianmovements across Hercules Street on or nearer the bridge area.


Serious)


re

Cardno For pedestrian safety we suggest thatthe school gate, just east of the bridge,be permanently closed.The school could consider a new accesspoint near Kintore Street.The proposed pedestrian crossing willcreate an alternative pedestrian desireline along Kintore Street and NewCanterbury Road for pedestriansaccessing the light rail stop.

3. Drivers and/or passengers of vehicles parking along both sides ofthe bridge shoulder area have no access to the adjacent footpathsdue to proposed pedestrian fencing and/or existing safety barriers.This would result in pedestrians walking along the road to access thefootpath.


Serious)


re







RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response


Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers



Medium(Occasional /

Minor)




Limited)

Roadusers


7. School speed zone signage on the right side of the Kintore Streetapproach to Hercules Street is obstructed by street tree foliage.School speed zone signage for the Beach Road entry to HerculesStreet is too close to the Hercules Street entry where drivers may notbe able to suitably see it when concentrating on turn manoeuvres.Consideration should be given to reinforcing the school speed zoneto aid in speed control along Hercules Street.


Limited)

Traffic signs Cardno The school speed zone sign at KintoreStreet is existing. We will discusspossible trimming of vegetation withTfNSW, RMS & Council.The school speed zone sign at HerculesStreet near Beach Road is existing. Wewill discuss possible repeater signs withTfNSW, RMS & Council.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

8. There would be some loss of parking along Kintore Street, whichmay result in impacts elsewhere and add pressure to pick-up / drop-off movements for the school and other nearby land uses.


Limited)

Roadusers

Cardno There would be a loss of approximately3 car park spaces in the vicinity of theproposed pedestrian crossing due tomandatory no stopping restrictions.



Limited)


section


10. There is no advance warning of the Kintore Street pedestriancrossing for vehicles turning into Kintore Street from bothapproaches along Hercules Street. The proposed advancepedestrian crossing sign for northbound travel would be betterlocated within the straight approach to the new crossing, ie. further tothe east.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)

Trafficsigns

Cardno The eastbound advance warning sign ispositioned approximately 80m prior tothe crossing in accordance withAS1742.10-2009 Figure 1. We couldshift 30m to the east to the east to anexisting power pole for eastboundapproach. We will add an advancewarning sign for the westboundapproach as it appears to be missingfrom the existing crossing.



12. It is assumed that any proposed landscape planting will grow and/orbe maintained to suitable sizes so that sight distances affecting road

Note only Landscapi Cardno Yes, appropriate low height landscapingwill be planted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

safety are not compromised. ng13. Consideration should be given to applying for school crossing

supervisors at the pedestrian crossing point in order to reinforce andcontrol conflicting movements – application is required to be made toNSW RMS and is based on warrants being met.


re

Cardno Noted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response




Serious)

Roadusers

Cardno Cardno will advise TfNSW who canadvise the school.

2. Drivers and/or passengers of vehicles parking along the western(light rail station) side of the bridge shoulder area north of the ‘NoStopping’ restriction would have restricted access to the adjacentfootpath due to the existing safety barrier. This would result inpedestrians walking along the road to access the footpath orcrossing the road diagonally towards the school access gate.


Serious)


re



Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers







RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

4. For southbound Hercules Street travel approaching the pedestriancrossing, there is restricted sight distance to the pedestrian crossingpavement markings. Consideration should be given to reinforcing theupcoming marked pedestrian crossing by extending the ‘zig-zag’approach linemarking to at least the crest of the bridge area wherethe pedestrian crossing markings can be clearly seen.Note: Approach sight distance (ASD: 1.1 m to 0.0 m for pavementmarkings) is considered to be marginal for the approach speeddownstream of the proposed speed hump (say 25 km/h). However,in reality, crossing sight distance (CSD: 1.07 m to 1.1 m for apedestrian to sight an approaching vehicle or vice versa) may beapplicable and is considered to be adequate for up to approximatelya 50 km/h approach speed.


Limited)


section

Cardno The approach sight distance of 26m issatisfied for the 85th percentile vehiclespeed of 35km/h.The zig zag road marking is provided30m prior to the crossing and complieswith RMS QA R141.



Limited)

Roadusers


6. School speed zone signage on the right side of the Kintore Streetapproach to Hercules Street is obstructed by street tree foliage.School speed zone signage for the Beach Road entry to HerculesStreet is too close to the Hercules Street entry where drivers may notbe able to suitably see it when concentrating on turn manoeuvres.


Limited)

Traffic signs Cardno The school speed zone sign at KintoreStreet is existing. We will discusspossible trimming of vegetation withTfNSW, RMS & Council.The school speed zone sign at HerculesStreet near Beach Road is existing. Wewill discuss possible repeater signs with






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

Consideration should be given to reinforcing the school speed zoneto aid in speed control along Hercules Street.

TfNSW, RMS & Council.



Limited)


section


8. While the two speed humps proposed would adequately slowsouthbound vehicles, they create an additional travel restriction(particularly for buses) for minimal road safety gain, ie. it isconsidered that vehicle speeds would not significantly increase ifonly a single speed hump was adopted.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)

Trafficmanagement devices

Cardno The use to two speed humps isconsidered necessary to slow vehiclespeed just before the curve and todecrease speed after the curve forvehicles travelling up grade to the crestand crossing. If only one speed hump isproposed before the curve there is achance vehicle speed will increase forvehicles travelling up grade to the crestand crossing. If only one speed hump isproposed after the curve there is achance approaching vehicles may notsight the hump due to the geometry ofthe curve.

9. It is assumed that the swept paths for longer vehicles (eg. buses) areadequate through the curved alignment with the central median kerb.

Note only Roadalignmentand cross

Cardno Yes, this has been checked and isadequate.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

section10. It is assumed that appropriate street lighting will be provided at the

crossing location as per applicable standards.Note only Lighting Cardno Yes, appropriate street lighting will be

provided.






re

Cardno Noted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response




Serious)

Roadusers


2. Drivers and/or passengers of vehicles parking along either side ofthe bridge shoulder area outside the ‘No Stopping’ restrictions butadjacent to the proposed pedestrian fencing and/or existing safetybarriers would have restricted access to the adjacent footpath. Thiswould result in pedestrians walking along the road to access thefootpath or crossing the road diagonally towards the school.


Serious)


re

Cardno The bridge shoulder area is largelyproposed to be “No Stopping”. Forpedestrian safety we could increase theextent mainly at the north west end.


Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers







RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

4. The required gap in the safety barrier on the western (light railstation) side of Hercules Street would compromise the integrity of thesafety barrier system and therefore, reduce the protection it providesfrom the bridge drop onto the light rail lines.

Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers

Cardno It is proposed to provide an Elsholzredirective kerb around the kerb blisterson the western side of the bridge toreduce the chance of errant vehiclesaccessing the gap.


Medium(Occasional /

Minor)




Limited)

Roadusers




Limited)







RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response



Limited)


section


9. For northbound Hercules Street travel approaching the pedestriancrossing, there would be restricted sight distance to the pedestriancrossing pavement markings beyond the current raised threshold.Consideration should be given to reinforcing the upcoming markedpedestrian crossing by extending the ‘zig-zag’ approach linemarkingdownstream of the raised threshold where the pedestrian crossingmarkings can be clearly seen.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)


section

Cardno The approach sight distance of 48m issatisfied for a speed of 50km/h.The zig zag road marking is provided30m prior to the crossing and complieswith RMS QA R141.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

10. The proposed arrangement of the pedestrian crossing (aligneddiagonally away from the new light rail access path) provides asomewhat indirect pedestrian path between the school and the lightrail. This may tempt some pedestrians to cross Hercules Street in anuncontrolled manner, eg. pedestrian desire lines to/from the schooland the south-east.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)


re

Cardno The pedestrian crossing is purposelyangled at 70 degrees to avoid theexisting expansion joints of the bridgewhich are a trip hazard to pedestrians.The angled crossing assists sight linesfor pedestrians as they are slightlypositioned looking at approachingvehicles.The staggered alignment from thepedestrian footpath to the pedestriancrossing is the safest arrangement forpedestrians providing pedestrian fencingblocks direct pedestrian desire lines.








re

Cardno Noted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response




Serious)

Roadusers



Medium(Improbable /

Serious)

Safetybarriers


3. On the western (light rail station) side of Hercules Street, south of themarked crossing, there is no pedestrian fencing proposed to corralpedestrians into the crossing, which may result in uncontrolledpedestrian movements away from the marked pedestrian crossing,especially for the pedestrian desire line to/from the south-east.

Medium(Improbable /

Serious)


re

Cardno A pedestrian fence on the western sidesouth of the marked crossing is notconsidered necessary.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response



Limited)

Roadusers




Limited)




Limited)


section







RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

7. For southbound Hercules Street travel approaching the pedestriancrossing, there may be restricted sight distance to the pedestriancrossing pavement markings. Consideration should be given toreinforcing the upcoming marked pedestrian crossing by extendingthe ‘zig-zag’ approach linemarking around the curved road alignmentto where the pedestrian crossing markings can be clearly seen.

Low(Improbable /

Limited)


section

Cardno The approach sight distance is notsatisfied for a speed of 50km/h. Theapproach sight distance of 38m issatisfied for a speed of 43km/h.The zig zag road marking is provided30m prior to the crossing and complieswith RMS QA R141.

8. For northbound travel along Hercules Street, there is no warning tokeep left of the central median as per the southbound approach.

Low(Occasional /

Limited)

Trafficsigns

Cardno It is an extension of a continuousmedian and keep left sign is notrequired.

9. It is assumed that the swept paths for longer vehicles (eg. buses) areadequate through the curved alignment with the central medianisland.

Note only Roadalignmentand cross

section

Cardno Yes, this has been checked and isadequate.






12. Consideration should be given to applying for school crossingsupervisors at the pedestrian crossing point in order to reinforce andcontrol conflicting movements – application is required to be made to


re

Cardno Noted.






RoadSafety

CategoryAction

by Response

NSW RMS and is based on warrants being met.



4. Formal Audit Statement

This road safety audit has been undertaken by Samsa Consulting Pty Ltd, using thereferences and documentation detailed previously and site visits of the subject road section.While the safety audit may provide recommendations about possible remedial measures inresponse to identified road safety issues, it is ultimately the responsibility of the road ownerand/or the road designers to determine how best to respond to each identified safety issue.The audit has been undertaken for the sole purpose of identifying any safety-deficientfeatures of the design options. Every effort was made to ensure that all relevant road safetyissues were considered and the findings are the opinion and judgement of the audit team.

_______________ 23rd July 2014ALAN SAMSARMS Accredited Road Safety Auditor: Level 3 Lead Auditor(Auditor ID: RSA-02-0056, Certification Expiry 1/07/2015)

_______________ 23rd July 2014CAROLYN SAMSARMS Accredited Road Safety Auditor: Level 3 Lead Auditor(Auditor ID: RSA-02-0585, Certification Expiry 14/06/2016)

Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd - Marrickville involved... · Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd Detail Design...

Documents

Transcript of Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd - Marrickville involved... · Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd Detail Design...