Auckland Transport Whangaparoa Road Dynamic Lane … · Auckland Transport Whangaparoa Road ... Auckland Transport Whangaparoa Road Dynamic Lane Trial ... Concept Design Road Safety

Auckland Transport

Whangaparoa Road Dynamic Lane Trial Concept Design Road Safety Audit

Auckland Transport

Whangaparoa Road

Dynamic Lane Trial

Concept Design Road Safety Audit

© Opus International Consultants Ltd 2017

Prepared By Opus International Consultants Ltd

Samitha Jayamaha Auckland South Office

Graduate Civil and Traffic Engineer 15 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland

Po Box 76-725, Manukau 2241

New Zealand

Reviewed By Telephone: +64 9 263 2500

John Neill Facsimile: +64 9 263 2501

Principal Traffic and Transportation Engineer

Date: September 2016

Reference: OAS 2016-177

Status: Version 1

Approved for

Release By

Chris Freke

Manager Auckland South

Whangaparoa Road Dynamic Lane Trial - Concept Design Road Safety Audit i

OAS 2016-177 | September 2016 Opus International Consultants Ltd

Contents

1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 The Safety Audit Procedure .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 The Safety Audit Team ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Report Format ................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Scope of Audit ................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Documents Provided ......................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 4

2 Safety Audit Findings ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Significant Concern – Speed Limit through Section during Trial Period......................... 5

2.2 Significant Concern – Crest Vertical Curve at Start of Eastern Restriction ..................... 6 2.3 Moderate Concern – Appearance of Smart Studded Flush Median ................................. 7 2.4 Moderate Concern – Weekend and Public Holiday Restrictions ..................................... 9 2.5 Significant Concern – Protection from Gantry ................................................................. 9

2.6 Moderate Concern – Number of Overhead Gantry Signs in each Option ...................... 10 2.7 Significant Concern – Existing Traffic Island ................................................................. 12 2.8 Minor Concern – Removal of Flush Median .................................................................. 12

2.9 Minor Concern – Right Turn Lanes into Side Roads ..................................................... 13 2.10 Moderate Concern – Right Turn into Side Roads/Properties during One Lane

Operation ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.11 Moderate Concern – Left Turn into Hibiscus Coast Highway........................................ 16

3 Audit Statement ................................................................................................ 17

Whangaparoa Road Dynamic Lane Trial - Concept Design Road Safety Audit 1


1 Background

1.1 The Safety Audit Procedure

A road safety audit is a term used internationally to describe an independent review of a future road

project to identify any safety concerns that may affect the safety performance. The audit team

considers the safety of all road users and qualitatively reports on road safety issues or opportunities

for safety improvement.

A road safety audit is therefore a formal examination of a road project, or any type of project which

affects road users (including cyclists, pedestrians, mobility impaired etc.), carried out by an

independent competent team who identify and document road safety concerns.

A road safety audit is intended to help deliver a safe road system and is not a review of compliance

with standards.

The primary objective of a road safety audit is to deliver a project that achieves an outcome consistent

with Safer Journeys and the Safe System approach, that is, minimisation of death and serious injury.

The road safety audit is a safety review used to identify all areas of a project that are inconsistent

with a safe system and bring those concerns to the attention of the client in order that the client can

make a value judgement as to appropriate action(s) based on the risk guidance provided by the safety

audit team.

The key objective of a road safety audit is summarised as:

To deliver completed projects that contribute towards a safe road system that is

increasingly free of death and serious injury by identifying and ranking potential safety

concerns for all road users and others affected by a road project.

A road safety audit should desirably be undertaken at project milestones such as:

Concept Stage (part of Business Case);

Scheme or Preliminary Design Stage (part of Pre-Implementation);

Detailed Design Stage (Pre-implementation/Implementation); and

Pre-Opening/Post-Construction Stage (Implementation/Post-Implementation).

A road safety audit is not intended as a technical or financial audit and does not substitute for a

design check on standards or guidelines. Any recommended treatment of an identified safety

concern is intended to be indicative only, and to focus the designer on the type of improvements that

might be appropriate. It is not intended to be prescriptive and other ways of improving the road

safety or operational problems identified should also be considered.

In accordance with the procedures set down in the “NZTA Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects

Guideline”, (Interim Release May 2013)”, the audit report should be submitted to the client who will

instruct the designer to respond. The designer should consider the report and comment to the client

on each of any concerns identified, including their cost implications where appropriate, and make a

recommendation to either accept or reject the audit report recommendation.

For each audit team recommendation that is accepted, the client shall make the final decision and

brief the designer to make the necessary changes and/or additions. As a result of this instruction the



designer shall action the approved amendments. The client may involve a safety engineer to provide

commentary to aid with the decision.

Decision tracking is an important part of the road safety audit process. A decision tracking table is

embedded into the report format at the end of each set of recommendations to be completed by the

designer, safety engineer and client for each issue documenting the designer’s response, client’s

decision (and asset manager’s comments in the case where the client and asset manager are not one

and the same) and action taken.

A copy of the report, including the designer’s response to the client, and the client’s decision on each

recommendation, will be given to the road safety audit team leader as part of the important feedback

loop. The road safety audit team leader will disseminate this to team members.

1.2 The Safety Audit Team

The road safety audit was carried out in accordance with the “NZTA Road Safety Audit Procedure for

Projects Guideline”, (Interim Release May 2013), by:

John Neill, Principal Traffic and Transportation Engineer, Opus International Consultants

Limited, Auckland South.

Samitha Jayamaha, Graduate Civil and Traffic Engineer, Opus International Consultants

Limited, Auckland South.

The Safety Audit Team (SAT) met at the Opus Manukau office to review the drawings on

31 August 2016. Auckland Transport’s representative, Anne Reed, briefed the SAT members prior

to this date via emails. A site inspection was undertaken on 31 August 2016. If required, an exit

meeting will be held following the receipt of this report.

1.3 Report Format

The potential road safety problems identified have been ranked as described in the following pages.

The expected crash frequency is qualitatively assessed on the basis of expected exposure (how many

road users will be exposed to a safety issue) and the likelihood of a crash resulting from the presence

of the issue. The severity of a crash outcome is qualitatively assessed on the basis of factors such as

expected speeds, type of collision, and type of vehicle involved.

Reference to historic crash rates or other research for similar elements of projects, or projects as a

whole, have been drawn on where appropriate, to assist in understanding the likely crash types,

frequency and likely severity that may result from a particular concern.

The frequency and severity ratings are used together to develop a combined qualitative ranking for

each safety issue using the Concern Assessment Rating Matrix in Table 1. The qualitative assessment

requires professional judgement and a wide range of experience in projects of varying scope and

locations.



Severity (Likelihood of Death

or Serious Injury Consequence)

Frequency (Probability of a Crash)

Frequent Common Occasional Infrequent

Very Likely Serious Serious Significant Moderate

Likely Serious Significant Moderate Moderate

Unlikely Significant Moderate Minor Minor

Very Unlikely Moderate Minor Minor Minor

Table 1: Concern Assessment Rating Matrix

While all safety concerns should be considered for action, the client or nominated project manager,

will make the decision as to what course of action will be adopted based on the guidance given in this

ranking process with consideration to factors other than safety alone. As a guide, a suggested action

for each concern category is given in Table 2.

Concern Suggested Action

Serious A major safety concern that must be addressed and requires changes to avoid

serious safety consequences.

Significant Significant concern that should be addressed and requires changes to avoid

serious safety consequences.

Moderate Moderate concern that should be addressed to improve safety.

Minor Minor concern that should be addressed where practical to improve safety.

Table 2: Risk Categories

In addition to the ranked safety issues, it is appropriate for the Safety Audit Team (SAT) to provide

additional comments with respect to items that may have a safety implication but lie outside the

scope of the safety audit. A comment may include items where the safety implications are not yet

clear due to insufficient detail for the stage of project, items outside the scope of the audit such as

existing issues not impacted by the project, or an opportunity for improved safety which is not

necessarily linked to the project itself. While typically comments do not require a specific

recommendation, in some instances suggestions may be given by the auditors.

1.4 Scope of Audit

The audit is a Concept Design Safety Audit for the proposed dynamic lane trial on Whangaparaoa

Road, between Hibiscus Coast Highway and Red Beach Road, situated in Red Beach. The design was

undertaken by Aurecon for Auckland Transport.



1.5 Documents Provided

The SAT has been provided with the following drawings of the proposed dynamic lane trial:

Drawing Number Description Rev.

251272-0000-SKT-RR-0008 Gantry and Signage Layout A

251272-0000-SKT-RR-0010 Proposed Gantry Layout West A

251272-0000-SKT-RR-0011 Proposed Gantry Layout Central A

251272-0000-SKT-RR-0012

Proposed Gantry Layout East A

In addition the SAT were provided with the following documents:

Whangaparaoa Road Vehicle Survey – March 2016 – Report Draft V1.2

Crash Statistics from NZTA Crash Analysis System.

Transition visuals power point.

1.6 Disclaimer

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on an examination of available relevant

plans, the specified road and its environs, and the opinions of the SAT. However, it must be

recognised that eliminating safety concerns cannot be guaranteed since no road can be regarded as

absolutely safe and no warranty is implied that all safety issues have been identified in this report.

Safety audits do not constitute a design review nor an assessment of standards with respect to

engineering or planning documents.

Readers are urged to seek specific technical advice on matters raised and not rely solely on the report.

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the report, it is made available on the

basis that anyone relying on it does so at their own risk without any liability to the SAT or their

organisations.

1.7 Project Description

Opus International Consultants Limited (Opus) Auckland South was commissioned by Auckland

Transport to carry out a Concept Stage Safety Audit for the proposed dynamic lane trial on

Whangaparaoa Road, between Hibiscus Coast Highway and Red Beach Road, situated in Red Beach.

The proposed works include changing the number of lanes in each direction based on the direction

of the peak traffic. The morning peak is from 6:30 am – 9:00 am and the evening peak is from 4:00

pm – 6:00 pm. Outside of the peak hours the flush median will be in operation. Smart studs will be

used to facilitate the dynamic lane trial. Gantry signs showing lane priority will be installed

throughout the section. Two options are considered in terms of the number of gantry signs that will

be used. Option 1 proposes to use nine gantry signs over the route and Option 2 proposes to use five

gantry signs over the route.



2 Safety Audit Findings

2.1 Significant Concern – Speed Limit through Section during

Trial Period

Driver indecision along this section may be likely during the initial stages of the trial. Driver

indecision may result in crashes along the road, including possible head-on crashes. The section of

road where the dynamic lane trial will be implemented is a 60km/h speed zone. At 60km/h crashes

along the section may result in severe injuries. Lowering the speed limit along this section will allow

more time for motorists to react to driver indecision and it will reduce the severity of a possible crash.

During the trial period, the Road Controlling Authority (RCA) should monitor driver behaviour along

this section. Based on driver behaviour, the RCA may reinstate a permanent speed limit after the

initial trial period to suit the operating environment.

Recommendation:

Consider lowering the speed limit, possibly to as low as 30km/h, along this section during

the initial trial period.

Monitor driver behaviour and possible crashes that occur during the trial period.

Based on the above, consider setting a subsequent permanent speed limit suitable to the

operating environment.

Frequency Rating Occasional Severity Rating Very Likely

Designer Response Agreed – It is advised that the speed limit be reduced during the trial. E.g. starting with a temporary speed of 30kph for the first week followed by an increase if/when drivers are more accustomed to the new arrangement.

Post-trial it is suggested that AT undertake a review of the permanent speed limit along this section of the road.

Safety Engineer Agree with SAT and Designer; however, the Safety Engineer doesn’t believe the proposed road environment would promote/self-explain a low speed limit i.e. 30km/h, especially in less congested conditions. Without sufficient engineering treatment to reduce the operating speed or without police enforcement could lead to significant non-compliance.

The Designer should consider a higher speed limit than the 30km/h recommended and continue to monitor the situation.

Consideration could also be given to only lowering the speed limit during the dynamic lane operating periods and maintain present speed limit outside those hours.

Client Decision Agree with the need for a temporary speed limit reduction in conjunction with initiating the trial.



Agree with safety engineer comments regarding non-compliance with a 30km/hr speed limit.

Set temporary speed reduction to 50km/hr. Consider recommendation for ongoing speed limit during trial as part of detailed design.

Action Taken Designer instructed to incorporate speed reduction as part of detailed design.

2.2 Significant Concern – Crest Vertical Curve at Start of Eastern

Restriction

The merge point on the eastern approach is obstructed by a crest vertical curve for motorists

travelling westbound. The commencement of the eastern restriction in the dynamic lane trial will be

obstructed by the crest vertical curve for motorists travelling westbound. Clear forward visibility of

the merge point is important as this is where the lane restrictions commence. Inadequate visibility

of the start point, for motorists approaching it, may result in motorists not abiding to the lane

controls. This may lead to crashes along this section of road.

Crest Vertical Curve



Recommendation:

Consider relocating the commencement point of the eastern restriction away from the crest vertical

curve so that motorists approaching it have clear forward visibility of it.


Designer Response Agreed –The location of the eastern commencement point and merge will be reviewed to improve forward visibility for drivers as part of the next design stage. An initial assessment indicates there is the potential to move the commencement further to the east.

Safety Engineer Agree with SAT and Designer, Designer to review the location of the eastern commencement point and merge.

Client Decision Agree with SAT recommendation. Detailed design is to include a review of the location of the eastern commencement point.

Action Taken Designer instructed to incorporate as part of detailed design.

2.3 Moderate Concern – Appearance of Smart Studded Flush

Median

The flush median will be in operation outside the peak hours. Smart studs will be used to depict the

flush median during these times. The concern is that these smart studs may not depict a flush median

accurately and motorists may not see it as a flush median. There is the potential for motorists to see

this as a lane. If motorists use the flush median as a lane this may lead to crashes.

The overhead gantry sign will say “Flush Median” when the flush median is in operation. However,

certain sections of the general population may not know what a flush median is. Most people can

describe a flush median but people may not identify it by its name. It is important to monitor the use

of the flush median during the trial period to observe driver behaviour.



Depiction of Flush Median

Recommendation:

Consider monitoring use of the flush median during the initial trial period to observe driver

behaviour.

Based on the above:

If motorists use the flush median as a lane, consider removing the flush median and having

variable lane priorities throughout the day.

If motorists are using the flush median for its desired purpose, consider retaining the flush

median.

Frequency Rating Occasional Severity Rating Likely

Designer Response Agreed – Monitoring driver behaviour and use of the flush median is required. Any subsequent treatments would be dependent on the outcomes of the monitoring.

Safety Engineer Agree with SAT and Designer, in addition to the continue monitoring the operation of the flush median, it is recommended that the Designer to consider other wording instead of “Flush Median”, for example “Lane Not in Use” or similar, as many drivers will not understand the term “Flush Median”.

Client Decision Agree with SAT recommendation for monitoring during the trial period.

No change proposed to overhead signage as recommended by safety engineer. Consideration has been given to the use of wording.



Action Taken AT to include review of the flush median operation in post implementation monitoring.

2.4 Moderate Concern – Weekend and Public Holiday Restrictions

From the information provided it is not clear to the SAT if the dynamic lanes will be in operation

during weekends and public holidays. A vast majority of the irregular road users will be travelling

along this section during weekends and public holidays. The dynamic lane configuration may confuse

irregular road users beyond the initial trial period. During weekends and public holidays there isn’t

a specific peak direction in traffic. Therefore, it may be more suitable to retain the flush median all

day during weekends and public holidays. This may reduce the likelihood of driver confusion

amongst irregular road users.

Recommendation:

Consider retaining the flush median all day during weekends and public holiday periods.

Frequency Rating Infrequent Severity Rating Likely

Designer Response Agreed – The arrangement should return to its default position of flush median during weekends and public holiday periods.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and designer.

Client Decision Agree with SAT recommendation.

Action Taken AT to initially operate dynamic lanes as recommended.

2.5 Significant Concern – Protection from Gantry

The SAT has not been provided with the structural details of the overhead gantry signs. It is not

evident whether the gantry signs will be protected with a barrier from errant vehicles. There are

numerous vehicle entrances situated within close proximity to the proposed gantry signs. As a result

there will be substantial turning movements from these vehicle entrances, which increases the

potential for a vehicle to strike a gantry. If a vehicle strikes a gantry, in a 60km/h speed environment,

the resulting injuries may be quite severe.



Recommendation:

Consider installing barriers at the location of the overhead gantry signs to protect them from

errant vehicles.


Designer Response Agreed – Means of providing protection at the overhead gantries will be considered as part of the next design stage noting that the barrier itself is a safety hazard.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer that when a vehicle collide with a gantry sign at 60km/h speed could potential result in serious injury or fatality.

Gantries should be located at least the minimum clear distance specified in “Austroads’ Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers” for a 60km/h road or protected with a safety barrier.

Designer to ensure that any protection treatments will not become a safety hazard.


Action Taken Designer instructed to consider providing protection to overhead gantries as part of detailed design.

2.6 Moderate Concern – Number of Overhead Gantry Signs in

each Option

Option 1 proposes to use nine gantry signs for lane signals whereas Option 2 only uses five gantry

signs for the lane signals over the route. Option 2 proposes to use less signs over the western section

where there is poor forward visibility for motorists due to the road geometry. The gantry signs

enforce the lane controls and it is imperative that these are situated within close proximity to each

other when there is poor forward visibility for motorists. Option 1, with the use of nine gantry signs,

will be safer than Option 2, with five gantry signs, to ensure that the lane controls are adhered to by

motorists.



Recommendation:

Consider implementing Option 1, with the use of nine gantry signs, rather than Option 2, with the

use of five gantry signs.


Designer Response Agreed – It is recommended that more gantries be introduced to enforce the lane controls and serve as a constant reminder to road users. Overhead power cables and underground utilities may restrict location options; maximising the number of gantry locations will be considered as part of the next design stage.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer that the number of proposed gantry signs should be maximised to reduce confusion.

Client Decision It is recommended that the trial be implemented with 6 overhead gantry signs and if monitoring indicates safety is a concern further signs can be considered. It is expected that the LED studs will be a significant focus in communicating the operation of the dynamic lanes and will be clearly visible at all times, therefore reducing driver reliance on overhead gantry signs. The trial is intended to set standards for future use of dynamic lanes and unnecessary overuse of gantry signs may set a precedent for future schemes. It should also be noted that gantry signs introduce safety concerns resulting in new roadside obstacles and minimising their use should be considered.

Action Taken Designer instructed to proceed with 6 gantries.



2.7 Significant Concern – Existing Traffic Island

The drawings provided to the SAT do not indicate whether the existing traffic island situated outside

159 Whangaparaoa Road will be removed. This traffic island has to be removed since the flush

median will form a lane during peak times of the day and the presence of the traffic island will impede

the path of motorists using it as a lane.

Traffic Island outside 159 Whangaparaoa Road

Recommendation:

Ensure that the traffic island situated outside 159 Whangaparoa Road is removed.

Frequency Rating Frequent Severity Rating Unlikely

Designer Response Agreed – The project proposal includes the removal of the traffic island and will be removed as part of the trial.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer.


Action Taken Designer instructed to remove traffic island as part of detailed design.

2.8 Minor Concern – Removal of Flush Median

The remnants of the painted flush median may still be prominent even after it is removed. This would

be particularly true on a rainy day when the pavement surface is wet. These markings would be

redundant upon the inception of the dynamic lane trial. The remnants of the old flush median may

lead to driver confusion which could lead to an increase in the crash rate. Resealing the road upon

the removal of the flush median would quell any chance of the flush median reappearing and causing

confusion. Additionally, a new seal may better suit the smart studs compared to the existing surface.



Recommendation:

Consider resealing the pavement surface upon the removal of the painted flush median and prior

to the installation of the smart studs.

Frequency Rating Occasional Severity Rating Unlikely

Designer Response Agreed – The pavement should be resealed to remove the potential for ghost markings being indistinguishable from the new markings and to reduce the potential of surface failure following the installation of the road studs. Pavement sealing details will be investigated at the next design stage.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer that the pavement should be resealed to remove the potential for ghost markings.


Action Taken AT will undertake resurfacing works in conjunction with implementing the dynamic lanes trial.

2.9 Minor Concern – Right Turn Lanes into Side Roads

There are several existing right turn bays along the route. It is unclear whether the right turn bays

will be removed as part of the proposal. It would be hard to depict the right turn bay using the smart

studs as it would be hard to depict the right turn arrow. Therefore, the right turn bays will have to be

removed as part of the proposal.

Example of Right Turn Bays



Example of Right Turn Bay

Recommendation:

Consider removing the right turn bays along the route.

Frequency Rating Occasional Severity Rating Unlikely

Designer Response Agreed – The right-turn markings and all other redundant road markings should be removed from the project. Details will be included on the drawings at the next design stage.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer.


Action Taken Designer instructed to remove right turn bays as part of detailed design.

2.10 Moderate Concern – Right Turn into Side Roads/Properties

during One Lane Operation

Vehicles waiting to turn right into side roads/properties when there is a single lane in operation will

cause blocking in this single lane while motorists find a suitable gap. Rear end crashes may result

due to these blockages. In a 60 Km/h speed environment, the resulting injuries may be significant.

Lowering the speed limit as suggested in Section 2.1 would reduce the severity of a possible crash. If

the kerbside lanes in each direction are kept as wide as possible, this may allow light vehicles to

manoeuvre to the left of a vehicle waiting to turn right.



Right Turn Traffic During One Lane Operation

Recommendation:

Consider providing the maximum width possible for the kerb side lanes in both directions. If rear

end crashes become a problem, consider banning all right turns during tidal flow operation.


Designer Response Agreed –Implementing a speed limit reduction will help reduce the severity of potential crashes. The intent of the design is to provide a kerb-side lane that will be as wide as possible, however this will be restricted due to AT’s preference to maintain existing kerb lines. There will be a significant proportion of the project where passing of turning vehicles will not be possible unless pavement widening is undertaken. Turning movements should be monitored as part of the flush median monitoring.

Safety Engineer Agreed with SAT and Designer, however the Safety Engineer strongly recommends the Designer to consider banning all right turns, from and into both side roads and driveways, during dynamic lane operating periods. Motorists could reroute via Red Beach Road and Hibiscus Coast Highway, this diversion would add an additional travel time of approximately 5 minutes and may not be much different to the time it would take to undertake a safe right turn manoeuvre, due to traffic volumes at peak times.

Client Decision Agree with designer’s response. It is not proposed to implement a right turn ban from the outset of the trial as proposed by road safety.



Based on the low number of right turners it is considered overly restrictive to introduce a ban from the outset of the trial. It is therefore recommended that turning movements should be monitored and addressed if required. It should also be noted there are other busy sections of arterial roads throughout the region where right turning traffic has to cross 2 lanes of opposing traffic without the assistance of a flush median.

Action Taken Designer instructed to take SAT feedback into consideration as part of detailed design.

2.11 Moderate Concern – Left Turn into Hibiscus Coast Highway

Currently there is a single free left turn lane for the movement from Whangaparaoa Road into

Hibiscus Coast Highway. The SAT is concerned with the capacity and operation of this single lane

when the tidal operation allows two lanes towards this point. It may be necessary to provide two left

turn lanes into Hibiscus Coast Highway. If two lanes are provided, then they would need to be

controlled by traffic signals.

Additionally, there are two through lanes into Millwater Parkway. The SAT is concerned that if two

left turn lanes are provided for capacity reasons, then there could be a conflict point where the two

westbound lanes on Whangaparaoa Road divide for the left and through movements. The lane

configuration in this area needs a suitable layout.

Recommendation:

Consider capacity and lane layout at the intersection of Whangaparaoa Road/Hibiscus Coast

Highway.

Frequency Rating Common Severity Rating Unlikely

Designer Response Agreed – The downstream capacity at the Whangaparaoa Road / Hibiscus Coast Highway intersection will restrict traffic to one lane and potentially cause congestion and merging conflicts. The lane configuration and capacity assessment at the Whangaparaoa Rd / Hibiscus Coast Hwy intersection is outside the Designer’s scope of works. However, the capacity limitation and lane configuration should be addressed.

Safety Engineer No safety issue or accident type has been identified in this problem, therefore the Safety Engineer has no comment to make.

Client Decision AT have reviewed capacity at this intersection and do not propose any further changes at this time.

Action Taken No further action.



3 Audit Statement

We certify that we have used the available plans, and have examined the specified roads and their

environment, to identify features of the project we have been asked to look at that could be changed,

removed or modified in order to improve safety. The problems identified have been noted in this

report.

Signed Date 9 September 2016

John Neill, NZCE (Civil),MIPENZ, CPEng Principal Traffic and Transportation Engineer Opus International Consultants Limited

Signed Date 9 September 2016

Samitha Jayamaha, BE (Hons), GIPENZ Graduate Civil and Traffic Engineer Opus International Consultants Limited

Designer Name …………………… Position …………………………………………...

Signature …………………… Date …………………………………………...

Safety Engineer Name …………………… Position …………………………………………...

Signature …………………… Date …………………………………………...

Project Manager Name …………………… Position …………………………………………...

Signature …………………… Date …………………………………………...

Action Completed Name …………………… Position …………………………………………...

Signature …………………… Date …………………………………………...

Project manager to distribute audit report incorporating decision to Designer, Safety Audit Team

Leader, Safety Engineer and project file.

Date:……………………..

Opus International Consultants Ltd 15 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland Po Box 76-725, Manukau 2241 New Zealand t: +64 9 263 2500 f: +64 9 263 2501 w: www.opus.co.nz