Salerie Corner Road Safety Audit Additional comment ...

\\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\SAFETY AUDITS\2016 AUDITS\251967 SALERIE CAR

PARK ACCESS (S2-S3)\SALERIE CORNER ROAD SAFETY AUDIT LETTER 14-10-16.DOCX

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd | Registered in England & Wales Registered Number: 1312453 | Registered Address: 13 Fitzroy Street London W1T 4BQ

Your ref

Our ref 251967/TB/AF

File ref

Via Email 63 St Thomas Street Bristol BS1 6JZ United Kingdom

t +44 117 976 5432 f +44 117 976 5433

[email protected] www.arup.com

States of Guernsey

Traffic & Highway Services

PO Box 145

Bulwer Avenue Office

Bulwer Avenue

St. Sampsons, Guernsey

GY2 4LR

4 November 2016

Dear

Salerie Corner Road Safety Audit

We are pleased to be providing you with a draft of our Road Safety Audit Stages 2 and 3

report. In addition to the comments in the report, we would be grateful if you could bring

the following item to the attention of the Design Team.

Additional comment outside the scope of audit

Both caution strips and ladder/tramline

paving are proposed to warn pedestrians/

cyclists of potential hazards.

While the audit team does not see any

specific safety issue with the use of

different materials, it would be preferable

to use the same material throughout the

scheme to avoid confusing pedestrians/

cyclists.

The next stage in the audit process would usually be for the Design Team to prepare a

Response Report (subject to you, as Project Sponsor, requesting any changes to our audit

report). However, we appreciate that road safety audits are not routine procedure on

Guernsey and you may wish to take a different course of action.

We would also note that the report is formatted as required by HD 19/15. Our observations

are represented as “problems” and “recommendations”, and the recommendations are

given as instructions. However, this does not preclude the Design Team from suggesting

alternative mitigation works or rejecting the problem, with appropriate reasoning.

If you would like to discuss the report or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact

me. We hope that you have found this road safety audit to be beneficial and we would

welcome an opportunity to work with you again.

251967/TB/AF

4 November 2016 of 2

\\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\SAFETY AUDITS\2016 AUDITS\251967 SALERIE CAR

PARK ACCESS (S2-S3)\SALERIE CORNER ROAD SAFETY AUDIT LETTER 14-10-16.DOCX

Yours sincerely

Senior Engineer

Traffic and Highways Services, States of Guernsey

Salerie Corner, St Peter Port -

Pedestrian and Cycle

Improvements Scheme

Road Safety Audit Stages 2 and 3

2016/6/251697/RSA2-3

Issue | 4 November 2016

This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied

upon by any third party and no responsibility

is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 251697

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

63 St Thomas Street

Bristol BS1 6JZ

United Kingdom

www.arup.com

2016/6/251697/RSA2-3 | Issue | 4 November 2016

U:\2016 AUDITS\251967 SALERIE CAR PARK ACCESS (S2-S3)\251697 SALERIE CP RSA2-3 (I).DOCX

Document Verification

Job title Salerie Corner, St Peter Port - Pedestrian and Cycle

Improvements Scheme

Job number

251697

Document title Road Safety Audit Stages 2 and 3 File reference

Document ref 2016/6/251697/RSA2-3

Revision Date Filename 251697 Salerie CP RSA2-3 (D1).docx

Draft 1 14 Oct

2016

Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name

Signature

Issue 4 Nov

2016

Filename 251697 Salerie CP RSA2-3 (I).docx Description Includes clarifications following discussions with client.


Name

Signature

Filename Description


Name

Signature

Filename

Description


Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document �

Traffic and Highways Services, States of Guernsey Salerie Corner, St Peter Port - Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements SchemeRoad Safety Audit Stages 2 and 3



Contents Page

1 Introduction 1

2 Scheme Details 2

2.1 Context 2

2.2 Scheme Description 3

2.3 Accident Data 3

3 Scope of Audits 4

4 Items Raised at the Stage 2 Audit 5

4.1 General 5

4.2 Signs and Markings 5

4.3 Non-Motorised Users 9

5 Items Raised at the Stage 3 Audit 11

6 Audit Team Statement 15

Figures

Figure 2.1: Site Location

Appendices

Appendix A

List of Documents and Drawings

Appendix B

Audit Plan




Page 1

1 Introduction

This report is the Stages 2 and 3 Road Safety Audit for the junction improvement

scheme at Salerie Corner, St Peter Port, Guernsey. The audit was requested by the

Overseeing Organisation: Traffic and Highways Services, States of Guernsey. A

Road Safety Audit Brief was supplied by the Overseeing Organisation and the

Project Sponsor approved the audit team membership as follows:

IEng, MICE, AMCIHT

Ove Arup & Partners

(Certificate of Competency awarded March 2016)

MEng (Hons), MCIHT

Ove Arup & Partners

A site visit was conducted jointly by the audit team in the afternoon of

Wednesday 5 October 2016. The weather was dry and sunny but windy, and

traffic flows were moderate. The audit team was joined on site by:

States of Guernsey

States of Guernsey

Roads Policing Unit, Guernsey Police

The audit team returned to the site later in the day on Wednesday 5 October when

it was dark, and the audit team leader visited the site independently in the morning

of Thursday 6 October. The main purpose of this last visit was to observe traffic

flows during the rush hour.

The audit was undertaken in accordance with the brief provided by the Overseeing

Organisation and comprised the site visit and an examination of the documents

listed in Appendix A. The locations of identified problems are indicated on the

plans included at Appendix B.

The terms of reference are described in HD 19/15 Road Safety Audit (Highways

England, 2015) and the audit team meets the training and experience requirements

set out therein. The team has examined and reported only on the road safety

implications of the scheme as presented and has not examined or verified the

compliance of the designs to any other criteria. However, to clearly explain a

problem or recommendation, the audit team may occasionally refer to design

standards without engaging in technical audit.

The audit team has reviewed the documents listed in Appendix A and identified

potential hazards relating to the road layouts contained therein. Road Safety Audit

is based upon a qualitative risk assessment process and there is no measure of the

success achieved by any recommendations. Whilst the Road Safety Audit process

is proven to enhance the safety performance of the scheme under consideration, it

cannot guarantee its safe operation as accidents are rare and random events. Road

traffic accidents are largely caused by factors outside the audit team’s influence,




Page 2

such as driving behaviour and to a lesser extent vehicle condition. The audit team

has used reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of its services.

2 Scheme Details

2.1 Context

One of the objectives of the States approved Integrated Transport Strategy is to

improve infrastructure for both cyclists and pedestrians, with the aim being to

encourage modal shift to more sustainable transport methods such as walking and

cycling. There are a number of measures approved in relation to cycling

infrastructure provision, including significant improvements to the main east coast

cycle path.

A review of the plans for the eastern cycle path was undertaken by Sustrans, a

leading UK charity, which is recorded and summarised in their report Active

Transport in Guernsey (February 2016). Traffic and Highway Services considered

the report and the Design Team devised a recommendation for Salerie Corner.

The scheme is located at the Salerie car park access at its junction with Glategny

Esplanade, which is part of Guernsey’s Inter Harbour Route and carries a high

volume of traffic in Guernsey terms. Figure 2.1 shows the site location.

Figure 2.1: Site Location




Page 3

2.2 Scheme Description

The project involves installing a 4.5m long raised table across the full width of the

Salerie car park entrance. Motorists entering/exiting the car park will be required

to give way to cyclists and pedestrians. The application is also to provide a

realigned footway and cycle path linking to the proposed new raised table.

The reason for the raised table is to slow vehicles down when entering and exiting

the car park and to visually highlight a crossing point, to increase safety, primarily

for cyclists but also for pedestrians.

The following works are also being undertaken as part of the improvements:

a) Alteration of kerbing along the road edge in order to improve inter-visibility

between cyclists and motorists, to reduce vehicle and cyclists speeds;

b) Provision of four areas for low level planting;

c) Slight reduction in length of central traffic island to ensure traffic manoeuvres

into Salerie car park from the south can be undertaken satisfactorily;

d) Continued provision of recycling area as shown on the plan;

e) Provision of an area for people to drop off recycling items near the table

(outside the scope of the audits);

f) Removal of the bus shelter and bus layby currently situated within the cycle

path and the creation of a new bus stop in the road;

g) Installation of a small tarmacked waiting area within the planted area for

passengers to get on/off the bus;

h) Installation of an overrun island with a 50mm height kerb that will

accommodate larger vehicles turning.

2.3 Accident Data

Details of road traffic accidents at the Salerie junction occurring in the last

36 months have been provided with the audit brief. Four accidents are reported,

two of which involved cyclists. One of the cyclist collisions was a fatality at the

southern access to the Salerie car park and bollards are now in place to prevent

vehicular access. The other cyclist collision was with a pedestrian on Glategny

Esplanade. The two remaining accidents involved cars/vans only: one a nose-to-

tail collision, and one a side impact that may have been due to excessive speed

since a vehicle was flipped on its roof.

There are too few accidents to draw any conclusions as to causation or risk, but

the rate of incidence for cyclists is disproportionately high. Cyclists are involved

in 50% of collisions but represent less than 10% of traffic.




Page 4

3 Scope of Audits

States of Guernsey do not generally require road safety audits for highway

schemes and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit had not been carried out.

The proposed works were under construction at the time of the site visit, but not

progressed far enough to conduct a full Stage 3 audit. It was agreed with the

Project Sponsor that the audit would look at both Stage 2 and Stage 3 issues:

Stage 2 Recommendations relative to the detailed design that could

be addressed during construction.

Stage 3 Recommendations relative to the works as constructed so far

at the time of the site visit.

Problems and recommendations for Stage 2 represent a full audit of the detailed

design for the improvement scheme. However, Stage 3 problems and

recommendations are a partial audit because only construction of the raised table

and new traffic island was complete. Given that the majority of the works (kerbs,

street lighting, signs and markings) were still being built, the audit team is unable

to comment on the completed scheme.

No details of swept path analysis or drainage were made available for audit

although the Design Team Leader advises that both were addressed during the

scheme design.




Page 5

4 Items Raised at the Stage 2 Audit

4.1 General

PROBLEM 1

Drg No: 6796/013 Rev E

Location: A: car park exit approach to raised table

Summary: Planting could restrict inter-visibility between road users and

pedestrians/cyclists

The proposed screening strip would extend from the edge of the carriageway,

and would therefore sit within the visibility splay. A maximum planting height

of 450mm is proposed for a distance of about 4m from the edge of the

carriageway, after which the height increases to over 450mm.

If the planting exceeds 450mm height near to the carriageway, either because

it's the wrong type or not maintained, there is a risk that car drivers exiting the

car park may not be able to see cyclists or pedestrians that are approaching the

crossing from the south. A pedestrian or cyclist may continue onto the crossing

and be hit by the motor vehicle that has not given way.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The screening strip should be realigned so that it follows the recycling bank,

instead of following the edge of the footway.

4.2 Signs and Markings

PROBLEM 2


Location: A and B: car park exit and entry approaches to the raised table

Summary: Drivers familiar with the junction may fail to notice that they are

now required to give way to pedestrians and cyclists




Page 6

The proposed raised table is a significant change from the existing priority,

whereby pedestrians/cyclists give way to road users, and is the first scheme of

this type on Guernsey. Drivers familiar with the existing junction layout may

fail to notice that they are now required to give way to pedestrians and cyclists

at the crossing.

There is a risk of collision if both a road user and pedestrian/cyclist attempt to

use the raised table at the same time.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Provide temporary signs to diagram 7014 with the variant 'CHANGED

PRIORITIES AHEAD' on all approaches to the crossing for a period of three

months following completion of works. We recommend that the temporary

signs should be installed at the crossing itself, and they could also be installed

in advance of the crossing.

PROBLEM 3



Summary: Road users may think the crossing is for pedestrians only and fail

to give way to cyclists

Give way road markings are proposed on the car park entry and exit approaches

to the raised table but there is no signage to indicate to road users that the table

is shared use. It may not be clear to road users that the table caters for

pedestrians and cyclists and that they need to give way to both users.

A road user who is unaware that both cyclists and pedestrians have right of way

may fail to see cyclists intending to proceed over the crossing. There is a risk of

collision if both a road user and cyclist attempt to use the raised table at the

same time. A pedestrian approaching the crossing will be travelling at about

4-5kph but a cyclist will be travelling at about 10-15kph. If a driver is not

intending to stop, there is a greater risk of collision with a cyclist than there is

with a pedestrian.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Provide warning 'cycle route' signs to Diag 950 on both the car park entry and

exit approaches to the raised table. It is recommended that a plate with the

legend "Cycles crossing" is also provided subject to avoiding over-provision of




Page 7

signs and street clutter. We recommend that these signs should be installed at

the crossing itself.

PROBLEM 4



Summary: Reduced impact of safety-critical GIVE WAY sign

The GIVE WAY signs and hump warning signs are proposed to be mounted on

the same post.

Mounting the GIVE WAY sign below the hump warning sign reduces its

impact and may increase the risk of drivers failing to give way to cyclists and

pedestrians, leading to collisions.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Locate the GIVE WAY road signs on their own posts in advance of the

crossing, say 1.5m but such that approaching drivers can see both the give way

and hump/cycle and signs.

PROBLEM 5


Location: C and D: Inter Harbour Route approaches to the car park access

Summary: Road users may not realise they need to give way leading to

sudden braking

Give way road markings are proposed at the car park entry on approach to the

raised table but there is no advance signage to indicate to road users that they do

not have priority at the table. It may not be clear to road users until the last

minute that they need to give way to pedestrians and cyclists.

A road user entering the car park and unaware that they may need to give way

at the table could brake suddenly when they realise that they do not have




Page 8

priority. There is a risk of collision if both a road user and pedestrian/cyclist

attempt to use the raised table at the same time.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Provide advance warning 'cycle route' signs to Diag 950 on the Inter-Harbour

Route approaches to the table with plates bearing the legend "Cycles crossing"

and arrows. The signs would also benefit from a distance as well.

PROBLEM 6


Location: C and D: Inter Harbour Route approaches to the car park access

Summary: An entry queue at the give way could lead to blocking back onto

the main road

During the site visit, it was observed that car park users can enter in a platoon,

although at the time a contraflow was in place and this may not be a regular

occurrence during normal traffic conditions. A queue of two or more vehicles

would extend back into the main flow of traffic.

Vehicles blocking the through route may lead to sudden braking and nose-to-

tail collisions.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Provide advance warning 'cycle route' signs to Diag 950 on the Inter-Harbour

Route approaches to the table with plates bearing the legend "Cycles crossing"

and arrows. This recommendation is the same as Recommendation 5 above but

mitigates a different problem, and therefore the recommendation is repeated.

PROBLEM 7


Location: E: foot/cycleway east of crossing




Page 9

Summary: Lack of centre line implies shared space that may lead to

pedestrians stepping into the path of cyclists

Pedestrians and cyclists are segregated at the crossing and the foot/cycleway

east of the junction. A short section of path between the crossing and the route

to the east is shown as shared space.

The lack of a centre-line may lead to pedestrians meandering into the path of

cyclists, leading to a collision and injury.

RECOMMENDATION 7

Provide a continuous centre-line to Diag 1049 along the length of the

segregated foot/cycleway.

4.3 Non-Motorised Users

PROBLEM 8


Location: F and G: foot/cycleway approaches to crossing

Summary: Incorrect use of tactile paving may confuse blind or partially-

sighted pedestrians

Tactile paving on the approaches to the crossing is specified as "corduroy". The

correct type of paving that should be used in this location is ladder and tramline

across the footway and cycleway respectively.

Incorrect use of tactile paving conveys misleading information to blind and

visually impaired pedestrians about the nature of the path, increasing the risk of

them being struck by a cyclist.

RECOMMENDATION 8

Provide ladder and tramline paving with a cross-section as detailed in Guidance

on the Use of Tactile Paving (Department for Transport UK, 2007).




Page 10

PROBLEM 9


Location: F and G: foot/cycleway approaches to crossing

Summary: Width and location of ladder and tramline paving may be

hazardous to cyclists

Tactile paving on the approaches to the crossing would be a width of 2.4m and

on a bend.

Cyclists would be turning whilst traversing the tramline paving, and the pattern

of the tramlines can lead to loss of control and particularly in wet weather.

RECOMMENDATION 9

Relocate the tactile paving such that is away from the bend and reduce the depth

to a minimum of 800mm.

PROBLEM 10


Location: H: interface between bus stop and shared use path

Summary: Pedestrians stepping off a bus could walk straight into the path of

oncoming cyclists

Short lengths of caution strips are proposed at the interface between the bus

stop and cycleway.

If passengers alighting a bus fail to see or do not understand the caution strips,

they may step into the cycleway and cause a collision. Blind or partially sighted

bus users would be particularly at risk.

RECOMMENDATION 10

Replace the short caution strips with corduroy paving, which will be more

noticeable to both fully sighted and blind or partially sighted pedestrians.

Locate the corduroy paving such that it does not encroach into the expected

path of cyclists.




Page 11

PROBLEM 11


Location: J: cycleway approach to raised table from the north

Summary: Drivers may fail to see and give way to a cyclist approaching

from the north-west

The cycleway follows a sinuous route on approach to the crossing, presumably

to mitigate cyclist speeds. However, this combined with the alignment of

Glategny Esplanade/St George's Esplanade means that a driver approaching the

crossing would have to check for cyclists behind his/her left shoulder.

Drivers may fail to see and give way to a cyclist approaching from the north-

west. There is a risk of collision if both a road user and cyclist attempt to use

the raised table at the same time.

RECOMMENDATION 11

Realign the cycleway such that it is adjacent to the footway on the approach to

the crossing, to minimise the angle which a driver is obliged to look over their

shoulder.

5 Items Raised at the Stage 3 Audit

PROBLEM 12


Location: J: raised table crossing

Summary: Pedestrians and cyclists may be hit by road users if drivers

cannot see them when it is dark

There are existing lighting columns near to the junction but these may not

adequately illuminate the new road crossing. The audit team was informed

during the site visit that additional lighting columns were being installed but no

plans have been provided.




Page 12

Inadequate street lighting may lead to road users failing to see pedestrians or

cyclists on the crossing, leading to a collision. Pedestrians/cyclists could be

particularly vulnerable if they are wearing dark clothing or, in the case of

cyclists, not using front/rear lights.

RECOMMENDATION 12

Review the existing street lighting and provide additional illumination if

necessary.

PROBLEM 13


Location: J: raised table crossing

Summary: Road users may think the crossing is for pedestrians only and fail

to give way to cyclists

Two different types of pavers/setts have been used to construct the raised table

but the colours are similar. It may not be clear to road users that the crossing

caters for pedestrians and cyclists and that they need to give way to both types

of user.

A road user that is unaware that both cyclists and pedestrians have right of way

may fail to see cyclists intending to proceed over the crossing. There is a risk of

collision if both a road user and cyclist attempt to use the raised table at the

same time.




Page 13

RECOMMENDATION 13

Provide 'cycle route' symbols to Diag 1057 on the crossing itself, which will

both guide cyclists and alert drivers and pedestrians to the presence of cyclists.

PROBLEM 14


Location: K: cycleway entry to raised table from the north

Summary: Cyclists entering the table at a skew angle may not see a road

user that is not giving way until it is too late to stop

The drawing shows the cycleway on approach to the road crossing at a right

angle. However, although construction was incomplete at the time of the site

visit, it did appear that the angle of approach was skew.

If the cycleway approach to the crossing is skew, a cyclist's line of vision will

not be towards the crossing. The collision risk caused by a road user not

intending to give way will be worsened by the cyclist’s skewed vision, where

they don’t see the potential hazard in time to stop.




Page 14

RECOMMENDATION 14

Realign the kerbs to provide a right-angled approach to the crossing.

PROBLEM 15


Location: L: traffic island on Glategny Esplanade

Summary: Lack of illuminated bollard leading to vehicles overrunning

kerbed island

The existing island has been shortened and the illuminated bollard removed. No

replacement bollard is indicated on the drawings and a non-illuminated bollard

was in place during the site visit.

Drivers may fail to see the kerbed island and overrun the island leading to loss

of control incidents, vehicular damage and damage to the island.

RECOMMENDATION 15

Provide an illuminated bollard on the island, with a 'keep left' arrow to Diag 610

on the north-facing aspect.




Page 15

6 Audit Team Statement

We certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with HD 19/15.

AUDIT TEAM LEADER

IEng MICE AMCIHT

Senior Engineer

Ove Arup and Partners Ltd

63 St Thomas Street

Bristol

BS1 6JZ

Signed:

Date: 4 November 2016

AUDIT TEAM MEMBER

MEng (Hons), MCIHT

Engineer

Ove Arup & Partners

Blythe Gate

Blythe Valley Park

Shirley

Solihull

B90 8AE

Signed:

Date: 4 November 2016

Appendix A

List of Documents and Drawings




Page A1

The Road Safety Audit Brief that defined the scope and details of the scheme

included the following documents and drawings.

Title Reference

Active Transport in Guernsey, Summary Report (Sustrans) 310-08-SW-RE-01

Revision number A,

February 2016

Salerie Car Park – Block Plan, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Table

Original proposal – priority to motorists

6796/013 Rev C

Superseded by Rev E

Salerie Car Park – Block Plan, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Table 6796/013 Rev E

Salerie Car Park – Block Plan, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Table

Marked-up plan with signs and road markings

6796/013 Rev E

Received 7 October 2016

Salerie Car Park – Raised Table, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Table 6796/014 Rev E

Salerie Car Park – Location Plan, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Table 6796/015 Rev C

Salerie Car Park – Cyclepath Details, Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian

Table

6796/019 Rev A

Salerie car park cycle/pedestrian improvements, letter of support

from Traffic and Highway Services to Planning Services

16 August 2016

Priority status at Salerie Crossing Point, emails from Traffic and

Highways Services to Guernsey Police

23 September 2016

Priority status at Salerie Crossing Point, emails from Traffic and

Highways Services to States Members

20 September 2016

Details of Road Traffic Accidents at the Salerie Junction in the last

36 months, Traffic and Highways Services

Undated

Traffic Flow Count 2-8 March 2015

Manual Classified Count 12 May 2015 and

13 June 2016

Appendix B

Audit Plan




Page B1

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

J

H

I

K

L

Salerie Corner Road Safety Audit Additional comment ...

Documents

Transcript of Salerie Corner Road Safety Audit Additional comment ...