Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2 · Project Name Branston Locks Link Road and Canal Bridge – Phase 1 Document Title Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2 Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft

Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2 Branston Locks Link Road and Canal Bridge – Phase 1 CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Revision Draft

March 2016

P/2016/00474

Received 24.03.2016

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Branston Locks Link Road and Canal Bridge – Phase 1

Project Number: CDX8620

Report Title: Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2

Report Number: RSAStg1/2

Issue Status/Amendment

Prepared Reviewed Approved

Draft Name: Marius Grigoras Name: Nick Newton

Name: Jeff Webb

Signature: Date: 15/03/2016



Name:

Name:

Name:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Name:

Name:

Name:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Name:

Name:

Name:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Project Name Branston Locks Link Road and Canal Bridge – Phase 1

Document Title Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2

Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft - i - Issued: March 2016

Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Commission and Terms of Reference................................................................... 1

1.2 Scheme Description ........................................................................................... 2

1.3 Audit Management ............................................................................................ 3

2 Items Raised at this Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit ............................................. 4

2.1 General ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Local Alignment ................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Provision ................................................................... 7

2.4 Road Signs, Carriageway Markings and Lighting ................................................... 9

3 Audit Team Statement ..................................................................................... 10

Appendix A Scheme Documentation A.1

Appendix B Problem Location Plan B.1

Tables

Table 1: Audit Team Membership ........................................................................................ 1

Table 2: Scheme Documentation ...................................................................................... A.1



Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft - 1 - Issued: March 2016

1 Introduction

1.1 Commission and Terms of Reference

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit carried out on Branston in

Staffordshire, at the request of Amey Project Management Team in Stafford on behalf of

Staffordshire County Council.

1.1.2 The Audit Team membership was as follows:

Table 1: Audit Team Membership

Membership Name Details

Audit Team Leader N Newton IEng, FIHE, FSoRSA, FCHIT Reg RSA(IHE)

Team Leader (Road Safety)

Audit Team Member M Grigoras MSc, EngTech, MIHE, Reg RSA (IHE)

Transport Planner

1.1.3 The team leader holds a Road Safety Certificate of Competence meeting the

requirements of the European Directive 2008/96/EC and HD19/15 Annex J.

1.1.4 It is confirmed that this is a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit and was undertaken in

accordance with the requirements of HD19/15, as no additional audit requirements were

requested. The audit comprised an examination of the completed works together

drawings issued to the audit team, these are listed in Appendix A.

1.1.5 A site visit was completed during daylight hours on 5th November 2015, it was raining at

the time, and the road surface was wet.

1.1.6 The terms of reference of the audit are described in HD19/15. 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.

1.1.7 All comments contained in the report with regard to Traffic Signs will be in accordance

with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD), 2002. Diagram

numbers will be referred to.




1.1.8 The audit brief provided to the Audit Team for this Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit

consisted of an audit request form and scheme drawings along with collision data, traffic

and speed data, CIP and CDM documents and also a NMU audit report. The information

was considered adequate for the purpose of carrying out the Road Safety Audit

requested.

1.1.9 No departures from standards relating to the scheme were provided to the Audit Team.

1.2 Scheme Description

1.2.1 The Branston Locks Development will comprise a new sustainable community to the

South West of Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire.

1.2.2 The proposed scheme aims to create a new access route from the A38 roundabout to

Branston Locks Development including a new Canal Bridge, access to Employment Site

and junction back onto Branston Road.

1.2.3 This includes re-aligning the existing Branston Road for a length of approximately 600

metres with a 100 metres extension in to the employment site together with

implementing a new footway / cycleway and street lighting. Other works include the

demolition of an existing property, Bridgefield House, traffic signage, landscaping,

statutory undertakers service diversion.




1.3 Audit Management

1.3.1 A draft report will be submitted to the Project Sponsor for checking, consideration and

approval. The Project Sponsor is responsible for agreeing with the Audit Team the

content of the final version of the report.

1.3.2 Upon issue of the final version of the Road Safety Audit report the Project Sponsor will

request the design team to prepare a Road Safety Audit Response Report in line with

HD19/15 Section 3 and Annex K. A copy of this should be issued to the Audit Team for

information.

1.3.3 If any problem or recommendation is not accepted on submission of the final report, a

signed ‘Exception Report’ is to be approved by the Project Director, a copy of which

should be sent to the Audit Team Leader for record keeping purposes.

1.3.4 Any other issues including those relating to maintenance which the Terms of Reference

exclude from this report but which the Audit Team wishes to draw the attention of the

Project Sponsor will be documented in a separate covering letter to this report.




2 Items Raised at this Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit

2.1 General

2.1.1 Problem

Location: Newly proposed pond

Summary: Errant vehicles could potentially plunge in the pond

The drawing CDX8620/R04/01 Vehicle Restraint System & Fencing provided to the audit

team shows no VRS around the newly proposed pond.

This could result in errant vehicles in the event of loss of control to plunge into the pond,

potentially causing injuries to the occupants with the risk of drowing.

Recommendation

A RRRAP assessment should be undertaken for the area surrounding the pond and

pending its outcome adequate protection should be install to protect vehicles from

plunging into the pond.

No

protection

for the pond




2.1.2 Problem

Location: Proposed Canal Bridge

Summary: VRS length insufficient

The westbound approach to the proposed canal bridge has the VRS connecting with the

structure represented in drawings no CDX8620/R04/01 and CDX8620/S/001D. It is noted

that the length of the VRS is 20m and a departure is required, however the audit team

was not provided with any departures from standards.

The minimum length of VRS must be 30m in advance of a hazard as per TD19/06. If the

length of VRS is less than 30m, then the VRS will not perform as designed and the

outcome of errant vehicle hitting this barrier could not be predicted and may strike the

structure which the barrier is intended to protect.

Recommendation

The length of the VRS should be extended to a minimum length of 30m as per TD19/06.

VRS length

insufficient




2.2 Local Alignment

2.2.1 Problem

Location: Junction of Link 1 with Link 3

Summary: Potential conflict between vehicles turning right and oncoming traffic

The proposed crossing point over Link 1 adjacent to Link 3, have proposed bollards to be

installed on the splitter island which are not clearly specified. Due to the road alignment

the bollards might interfere with the visibility of vehicles waiting to turn right from Link

Road 1 onto Link Road 3.

This could lead to potential side impact or rear end shunt collisions.

Recommendation

The designer should ensure that the height of the installed bollards or any additional

street furniture will not block the visibility of vehicles waiting to turn right into Link 3.




2.3 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Provision

2.3.1 Problem

Location: Crossing point east of the Canal Bridge

Summary: Position of the crossing east of the Canal Bridge could be ignored by NMu’s

crossing the Link Road 1

The NMU’s accessing Link Road 1 from the Link Road 4 via the cycle track or the steps

once reaching the footway their desired line if they intend to cross over is straight across

the Link Road 1. Although a crossing has been specified this is considered to be too far

west and this may result in pedestrians and cyclists waiting within the hatch road

markings where they will be vulnerable to potential vehicle strikes.

Recommendation

The crossing should be relocated to the east as much as possible, considering the

minimum distance for a crossing from a junction specified in the LTN 29/5. Also

consideration should be given to relocating the staircase to the left if possible in order to

align the crossing with the location where the NMU’s are accessing to the Link Road 1

footway from the canal side.

Potential NMU-

motorist

conflict




2.3.2 Problem

Location: Cyclist route between NW Link Road 1 and Link Road 4

Summary: Conflicts between cyclist and vehicles are exacerbated by making the cyclist

to cross Link Road 1 twice

The cyclists who will access the Link Road 4 travelling from north-west of Link Road 1

are made to cross the carriageway twice and therefore increasing the risk of potential

collisions with motorists.

Furthermore cyclists accessing the footway from the canal side area not presented with

a cycle end of route sign, which means they will use this footway if it is their intended

route, but from the opposite side of this footway there is a sign for cycle route to end.

Recommendation

The westbound footway of Link Road 1 should be made for shared pedestrians and

cyclists.

Furthermore considering there are two crossings within a short distance that could be

used by cyclists, it would be beneficial if cyclists warning signs would be installed either

side of the crossing points.

Cyclist having

to cross twice

Conflicting

signs




2.4 Road Signs, Carriageway Markings and Lighting

2.4.1 Problem

Location: Link Road 2 & Link Road 3

Summary: Lack of directional signs could lead to rear end shunts collisions

No directional signs for Link Road 2 and Link Road 3 are being specified in the drawings

issued to the audit team. When exiting the roundabout towards Link 3 there is a flag

type directional sign with the direction of Tatenhill. This information it is not represented

on the proposed drawings on the intersection of Link Road 2 with Link Road 3 which

may lead to motorists missing the turn towards Tatenhill or braking in the last minute

which could potentially result in rear end shunts. The Link Road 3 junction is mainly of

concern as the audit team is aware of the further developments plans along this route

and it is considered that this is going to by a busy junction.

Recommendation

Directional signs should be installed for Link Road 3 and Link Road 2 junctions, however

the designer should ensure that the installed signs will not obscure or will not be

obscured by any other signs.




3 Audit Team Statement

3.1.1 We certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with HD19/15.

AUDIT TEAM LEADER: AUDIT TEAM LEADER:

Nick Newton IEng, FIHE, FSoRSA, FCHIT

Reg RSA(IHE)

Signed:

Marius Grigoras MSc MIHE Reg RSA(IHE) Signed:


Reg RSA(IHE)

Signed:

Team Leader (Road Safety)

Amey Consulting International Design Hub Colmore Plaza 20 Colmore Circus Birmingham B4 6AT

Date: 15/03/2016 Transport Planner


Date: 03/02/2016 Team Leader (Road Safety)


Date: 29/01/2016

AUDIT TEAM MEMBER: AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:

Marius Grigoras MSc, EngTech, MIHE,

Reg RSA(IHE)

Signed:


Reg RSA(IHE)

Signed:

Marius Grigoras MSc MIHE Reg RSA(IHE) Signed:

Transport Planner


Date: 15/03/2016 Team Leader (Road Safety)


Date: 03/02/2016 Transport Planner


Date: 29/01/2016



Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft - A.1 - Issued: March 2016

Appendix A Scheme Documentation

The Road Safety Audit was conducted using the drawings listed in the table below.

Table 2: Scheme Documentation

Drawing Number Revision Details

Drawings Highways

GA/01 - General Arrangement

R01/00 T0 Cover Sheet

R04/01 T0 Vehicle Restraint Systems & Fencing

R04/02 T0 VRS Systems Verge Widening at protected Lighting Columns

R05/01 P0 Drainage General Arrangement

R05/11 P0 Pond Details

R05/12 P0 Soakaway Details

R06/02 P1 Link Road 1 Typical Sections (1 of 2)

R06/03 P1 Link Road 1 Typical Sections (2 of 2)

R06/13 T0 Longitudinal Sections (Sheet 1 of 2)

R06/14 T0 Longitudinal Sections (Sheet 2 of 2)

R06/15 T0 Cross Sections Link Road 1 (1of 4)

R06/16 T0 Cross Sections Link Road 1 (2 of 4)









R07/01 T0 Pavement Construction

R11/01 T0 Kerbs and Footways

R12/01 T0 Traffic Signs and Road Markings

R12/02 T0 Road Markings

R12/03 T0 Sign Details

SCC-HL-1001 - E-on Street Lighting Plan

LW-01 T0 Landscaping General Arrangement



Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft - A.2 - Issued: March 2016

Drawing Number Revision Details

LW-02 T0 Landscaping Tree Protection

LW-03 T0 Fencing , Gates & Maintenance Track

Drawings - Structures

S/001 - General Arrangement Visualisation

S/002 - General Arrangement Technical

S/006 - West Abutment Section

S/007 - East Abutment Section

S/008 - North Sectional Elevation And Details

S/009 - South Sectional Elevation And Details

S/011 - Parapet Details

Documentation

Collision and Traffic Data

2008 & 2009 Survey Data Locations

Accident Data 01.01.10 to 31.12.14

Feb 2009 29B026-Speed

Feb 2009 29B026-Week Volume

July 2008 28H017-Speed

July 2008 28H017-Week Volume

AIP

AIP Nurton Bridge REV 01

Nurton Bridge AIP Page Signed Off

CDM

HS-CDM-FO-01 CDX8620 Phase 1 Works

HS-CDM-Fo-10 CDX8620 Designers Aide Memoire

HS-CDM-FO-11 Design Hazard Management Register Branston

NMU Audit

Appendix A Issues Arising in NMU Audit

Branston Locks Non-Motorised User Audit



Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft - B.1 - Issued: March 2016

Appendix B Problem Location Plan

2.1.1

1

2.2.1

1

2.3.1

1

2.1.2

1

2.3.2

1

2.4.1

1

2.4.1

1

Documents

Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2 · Project Name Branston Locks Link Road and Canal Bridge – Phase 1 Document Title Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2 Doc. Ref.:CDX8620 /RSAStg1/2 Rev. Draft