PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS · Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – South Western Highway –...

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT RPORT (PRELIMINARY DESIGN STAGE)

PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS

RISELEY ROAD/KEARNS CRESCENT INTERSECTION

ARDROSS

FINAL REPORT

AUGUST, 2010

CLIENT:

A.B.N. 22 087 386 374

3 Skipton Way City Beach,

WA 6015.

C K

KLYNE

CONSULTANTS

CITY OF MELVILLE

Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – South Western Highway – Clara Street to Abernethy Road. - Page-1.

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT STAGE 2 (PRELIMINARY DESIGN)

INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS RISELEY STREET/KEARNS CRESCENT

INTERSECTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Melville has been successful in the application for traffic signals to be installed at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection under the 2008/2009 Black Spot Program. Agreement in Principle for the traffic signal installation was obtained from Main Roads WA in 2007. The Black Spot submission was supported by a Road Safety Audit (completed May 2008 by Traffic and Transport Solutions) of the existing intersection. The Road Safety Audit of the then “existing road” for the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection identified a total of 15 road safety issues. These related to modifying the intersection geometry to accommodate “diamond” right-turning vehicles, pedestrian crossing facilities, improving the site visibility interrupted by the al-fresco dining, for pedestrians and the “protection” of café patrons on the footpath. The preliminary design of the intersection as shown in Drawing No. 5343A1-07E incorporates most of the improvements recommended. The draft geometric concept design was sent to Main Roads for approval June 2010, where concerns were expressed on the geometric standards of kerb radii, proximity of parking and possible overlap of opposing right hand turn movements of trucks from Kearns Crescent. Main Roads WA carried out a further review of the traffic modelling of the signals, particularly relating to the sequencing of the new signals with the existing signals at Canning Highway in April 2010. Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd was commissioned by the City of Melville to undertake a Road Safety Audit of the proposal, to identify any features of the design which could be altered or removed to improve the safety of the project. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS. This audit has been carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design, which could be altered or removed to improve the safety of the project. It is IMPERATIVE that if the road safety issues identified are not satisfactorily addressed and resolved, the proposed installation of traffic signals at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent should NOT proceed. If traffic signals incorporating phases to assist pedestrians crossing Riseley Street and Kearns Crescent are not installed, the establishment of a lower area-wide speed limit for sections of Riseley Street and Kearns Crescent should be pursued. Changes to the kerb line geometry and traffic islands at the intersection should be made to address the recorded right-angle and right-turn through crashes. The following recommendations are forwarded for consideration and implementation. Ensure that the type and location of the stormwater gullies (grates and side-entry pits) are well located to

effectively collect and dispose of the stormwater run-off from the roads. (IMPORTANT). Remove the advertising sign, and relocate the street lighting poles such that they do not obscure the

traffic signal aspects proposed for the intersection. (IMPORTANT). Ensure that the level difference between the road pavement and the al-fresco dining area on the north-

eastern corner is minimal and is not a roadside hazard. Ensure that the al-fresco dining area on the south-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection is protected against errant vehicles.

Klyne Consultants

Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection, Ardross. - Page-2.

Ensure that the aspects of the proposed traffic signals are clearly visible to approaching drivers. Remove any trees or branches and modify the shop-front awnings and enclosure for the al-fresco dining area on the north-eastern corner of the intersection to maintain an approaching driver’s view of the traffic signal aspects. (IMPORTANT).

Review the design of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection to incorporate traffic islands in both the eastern and western approaches in Kearns Crescent. Locate the traffic signal pedestal and aspects in the traffic islands in the centre of each approach in Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

Modify the design of Riseley Street at the Kearns Crescent intersection to incorporate wider kerbside traffic lanes and on-road cycle lanes to comply with Austroads Guide to Road Design Pt. 4:Unsignalised and signalised Intersections and Roadside Design – Part 6:Pedestrian & Cyclists Paths and Main Roads WA Guidelines.

Remove and where appropriate, replace the right-angled parking bays on both sides of Kearns Crescent at the eastern and western approaches to Riseley Street with parallel parking bays located at the recommended distances away from the traffic signals by Main Roads WA. (IMPORTANT).

Ensure that the gradient of the kerb-ramp at the north-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent Intersection is constructed to comply with the recommendations of AS 1428.4, to accommodate the requirements of pedestrians with disabilities. (IMPORTANT).

Do not install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) on the kerb-ramp in the central median island in Riseley Street, 58 metres south of Canning Highway.

Consult Main Roads WA with respect to installing the “Traffic Signals Ahead” (W3-3) signs for Kearns Crescent and Canning Highway. (IMPORTANT).

Re-locate the Bus Stop on the west side of Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent into an embayment, possibly the car parking bays to the north of Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

Re-locate the Bus Stop on the east side of Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent into an embayment, or to a location to the south of Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

Ensure that the re-located street light poles and lamps provide illumination levels compliant with AS 1158 for the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection. Replace or repair the street light on the south-eastern corner of the intersection.

Ensure that the phasing and timing of the traffic signal operation for the Canning Highway/Riseley Street intersection is linked with that of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent signals to make sure that vehicle queues do not extend into either intersection. (IMPORTANT).

Klyne Consultants


1.0 BACKGROUND. City of Melville has been successful in the application for traffic signals to be installed at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection under the 2008/2009 Black Spot Program. This was mainly due to the high number of right angle and right turn through crashes recorded, and the need to improve pedestrian safety. Agreement in Principle for the traffic signal installation was obtained from Main Roads WA in 2007. The Black Spot submission was supported by a Road Safety Audit (completed May 2008 by Traffic and Transport Solutions) of the existing road. The Road Safety Audit of the then “existing road” for the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection identified a total of 15 road safety issues. These related to widening the right-turn lane in Riseley Street (northbound), modifying the intersection geometry to accommodate “diamond” right-turning vehicles, pedestrian crossing facilities; improving the site visibility interrupted by provisions for al-fresco dining; for pedestrians and the “protection” of café patrons on the footpath. The preliminary design of the intersection as shown in Drawing No. 5343A1-07E incorporates most of the improvements recommended. The plan showing the signs and pavement markings No. 5344A1-07E referred to in this drawing was not prepared. The draft geometric concept design was sent to Main Roads for approval June 2010. There were some differences of opinion expressed as to the geometric standards of kerb radii, proximity of parking and possible overlap of opposing right hand turn movements of trucks from Kearns Crescent. Main Roads WA carried out a further review of the traffic modelling of the signals, particularly relating to the sequencing of the new signals with the existing signals at Canning Highway in April 2010. It is significant to note that the Road Safety Audit undertaken in May, 2008 identified vehicle queues in Riseley Street extending back from Canning Highway across the Kearns Crescent intersection. Main Roads WA advised that the City of Melville undertake an independent road safety audit of the design for the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection to address any potential safety issues that may arise. Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd was commissioned by the City of Melville to undertake a Road Safety Audit of the proposal, to identify any features of the design, which could be altered or removed to improve the safety of the project. 2.0 DISCLAIMER This is a final report. It is to be referred to the City of Melville and, where appropriate, Main Roads WA for consideration and implementation. This report contains the findings, opinions and recommendations of the audit team based on the examination of the site on August 24, 2010. As a consequence the report may not identify all the deficiencies that may have existed before and after the audit. Neither the City of Melville nor Main Roads WA is bound by any of the contents of this report. Notwithstanding that this report may contain statements in relation to technical matters, both of a general nature and in relation to specific issues, in no way should readers of the report rely solely on its contents. Readers must seek appropriate expert advice on their own particular circumstances and rely on such advice. 3.0 PROJECT AND SITE DETAILS It is proposed to install traffic signals at the intersection of Riseley Street and Kearns Crescent. Riseley Street is a dual-carriageway comprising two traffic lanes and an on-road cycle lane for northbound and southbound traffic. Associated with the traffic signal installation, it is proposed to widen and lengthen the right-turn lanes in Riseley Street at both the northern and southern approaches to Kearns Crescent. It is proposed to remove the large trees in the central median island in Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent.

Klyne Consultants


It is proposed to modify Kearns Crescent, at the eastern and western approaches to Riseley Street where the raised brick plateaus are to be removed and the kerb line re-aligned. The brick planter-box on the north-western corner is to be removed and the area brick paved. The kerb-ramps on all four corners and across the central median island in Riseley Street are being modified and tactile ground surface indicators (TGSI) installed. Details of the proposed intersection geometry, and removal of the 900 parking bays in Kearns Crescent to accommodate the traffic signals are shown in Drawing No. 5343A1-07E contained in Appendix “B”. 4.0 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

4.1 Objectives The objectives of this road safety audit are:-

To review the design and background information and form conclusions about the safety performance and accident potential of the re-designed road.

To evaluate the proposal in terms of interaction with its surrounds and nearby roads, and to visualise potential impediments and conflicts for road users.

To report on the conclusions drawn and to make recommendations regarding aspects which involve unnecessary or unreasonable hazards.

The purpose of the Road Safety Audit report is not to rate the design, but rather to address any road safety concerns. In reviewing the safety aspects of a road project, the reporting procedure is not intended as a re-design process, but to outline potential or existing road safety issues and establish a basis upon which a design could produce an acceptable solution to the safety problem. The recommendations will indicate the nature or direction of a solution, rather than specifying the details of how to solve the problem. Items which are considered to be of significantly greater potential hazard than most identified deficiencies are recorded as “IMPORTANT” or “SERIOUS” in the Audit Findings. Items of sufficient hazard to require immediate attention are recorded as “URGENT”. These two classifications are not mutually exclusive. Further, where other items are not so recorded it does not mean they are unimportant, but are simply considered to be of lesser hazard. It is intended that the recommendations for corrective action be discussed with the City of Melville and Main Roads WA where appropriate, to determine whether the recommendations should be implemented, and where it is decided otherwise, to give reasons in writing for the decision. 4.2 Auditor and Audit Process Details This report results from a Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design Stage) of the re-design of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection to accommodate the installation of traffic signals (See Aerial Photograph in Appendix “A”). Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd was commissioned by the City of Melville to undertake the Road Safety Audit of the preliminary design for the intersection prepared by the City of Melville. The Audit team comprised:-

Team Leader Michael Klyne Principal Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd. Member Ron Koorengevel Traffic Manager Design Main Roads WA Member Kimberly Brosztl Consultant City of Melville Member Jenna Andrews Road Safety Project Officer WALGA Observer Cara Phillips Traffic & Road Safety Co-ordinator City of Melville

The audit was carried out with the site inspection on August 24, 2010 following the procedures set out in AUSTROADS Guidelines for Road Safety Audit (2009). The “night” inspection was undertaken by the Team Leader on August 28, 2010. Checklist 2.1 to 2.9 inclusive was completed for the design of the traffic signal installation at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection and is included in Appendix “C” of this report.

Klyne Consultants


5.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Aerial Photograph of Site Appendix “A”. Preliminary Design Drawing Appendix “B”. Safety Audit Checklist Appendix “C”. Photographs Appendix “D”. 6.0 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ALL OPTIONS). 6.1 General Topics – Drainage.

The preliminary design plan shows the removal of the raised brick plateaus in Kearns Crescent at each approach to Riseley Street. The existing side-entry drainage gullies are blocked due to the small aperture for the stormwater. Good stormwater collection and disposed is required to avoid “local” flooding and enhance road safety. The locations and design of the stormwater gully pits should be reviewed to ensure effective stormwater collection and disposal. Recommendation: Ensure that the type and location of the stormwater gullies (grates and side-entry pits) are well located to effectively collect and dispose of the stormwater run-off from the roads. (IMPORTANT).

6.2 General Topics - Services. The advertising sign located in the central median island in Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent and the street light poles (See Photographs Nos. 3 & 4) will partially obscure the traffic signal aspects at their proposed locations. It is important that drivers have an uninterrupted view of the traffic signal aspects as they approach the intersection. Recommendation: Remove the advertising sign, and relocate the street lighting poles such that they do not obscure the traffic signal aspects proposed for the intersection. (IMPORTANT).

6.3 General Topics – Roadside Objects. The preliminary design for the intersection proposes the installation of crash-tested bollards to “protect” the al-fresco dining area on the north-eastern corner of the intersection. The drawing does not detail the level difference between the road and the al-fresco dining area. If this is substantial (as existing – See Photograph No. 11), it presents a roadside hazard. The level of the al-fresco dining area is to be lowered to be closer to road pavement levels. The al-fresco dining area on the south-eastern corner remains unprotected (See Photograph No. 4). It is important that a similar treatment is made to protect patrons of the al-fresco dining area on the south-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection. Recommendation: Ensure that the level difference between the road pavement and the al-fresco dining area on the north-eastern corner is minimal and is not a roadside hazard. Ensure that the al-fresco dining area on the south-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection is protected against errant vehicles.

6.4 General Topics – Landscaping, Awnings. The trees in the central median island of Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent, partially obscure the aspects of the proposed traffic signals. Similarly, the branches of the tree on the south-eastern corner, the roof of the shop-front awning and enclosure for the al-fresco dining area will obscure the proposed traffic signal aspects (See Photographs Nos. 2 & 12).

Klyne Consultants


Recommendation: Ensure that the aspects of the proposed traffic signals are clearly visible to approaching drivers. Remove any trees or branches and modify the shop-front awnings and enclosure for the al-fresco dining area on the north-eastern corner of the intersection to maintain an approaching driver’s view of the traffic signal aspects. (IMPORTANT).

6.5 Design Issues – Intersection Geometry - Single Unit “Design Vehicle”. The intersection geometry is based on Single Unit Design Vehicles of 12.5 metre radius (with a 1.6m separation) making the “diamond” turns from Riseley Street into Kearns Crescent. Larger vehicles making these turning movements will conflict with any stationary vehicle in Kearns Crescent waiting to enter Riseley Street. The incorporation of a traffic island in Kearns Crescent on either side of Riseley Street will separate the opposing vehicle movements, enhancing road safety. With the curvilinear geometry of Kearns Crescent, drivers approaching Riseley Street from the east and west will not have an uninterrupted view of the proposed traffic signals (See Photographs Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8). The incorporation of a traffic island in Kearns Crescent on either side of Riseley Street will enable the traffic signals to be installed in the traffic island which will provide approaching drivers with an uninterrupted view of the signal aspects. Recommendation: Review the design of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection to incorporate traffic islands in both the eastern and western approaches in Kearns Crescent. Locate the traffic signal pedestal and aspects in the traffic islands in the centre of each approach in Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

6.6 Design Issues – Cross Section. The preliminary design Drawing No. 5343A1-07E shows traffic lane widths of 3.1 metres on Riseley Street, north and south of Kearns Crescent. The on-road cycle lane is shown to be 1.0 metres in Riseley Street (northbound) to the south of Kearns Crescent and 1.2 metre in Riseley Street southbound, south of Kearns Crescent. As buses service this section of Riseley Street, the kerbside lane width should be increased to a minimum of 3.2 metres to accommodate these large vehicles. The on-road cycle lane should be maintained at 1.2 metes to comply with Austroads Guide to Road Design Pt 6A- Pedestrian and Cyclists Paths. Recommendation: Modify the design of Riseley Street at the Kearns Crescent intersection to incorporate wider kerbside traffic lanes and on-road cycle lanes to comply with Austroads Guide to Road Design Pt. 4:Unsignalised and signalised Intersections and Roadside Design – Part 6:Pedestrian & Cyclists Paths and Main Roads WA Guidelines.

6.7 Access to Property and Developments The preliminary design Drawing No. 5343A1-07E shows the retention of the 900 parking bays on both sides of Kearns Crescent, east and west of Riseley Street. These parking bays are located between 13 metres and 23 metres from the “holding line” at the approaches to Riseley Street. Drivers reversing out of these parking bays have poor sight distances to oncoming traffic and will have insufficient time to respond to drivers of vehicles accelerating to “beat” the change in traffic signals at the intersection. The right-angled parking bays in Kearns Crescent should be replaced with parallel parking bays located at the recommended distance away from the traffic signals by Main Roads WA. Recommendation: Remove and where appropriate, replace the right-angled parking bays on both sides of Kearns Crescent at the eastern and western approaches to Riseley Street with parallel parking bays located at the recommended distances away from the traffic signals by Main Roads WA. (IMPORTANT).

Klyne Consultants


6.8 Other Road Users - Pedestrians The preliminary design Drawing No. 5343A1-07E shows the retention of the kerb-ramp at the north-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection. The gradient of this kerb-ramp was measured to be 20.8% which exceeds the recommended 1:10 gradient. The gradient of the kerb-ramps should be constructed to comply with the recommendations of AS 1428.4, to accommodate the requirements of pedestrians with disabilities. Recommendation: Ensure that the gradient of the kerb-ramp at the north-eastern corner of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection is constructed to comply with the recommendations of AS 1428.4, to accommodate the requirements of pedestrians with disabilities. (IMPORTANT).

6.9 Other Road Users – Vision Impaired Pedestrians The preliminary design Drawing No. 5343A1-07E shows the installation of Tactile Ground Surface Indicators to the kerb-ramp in the median 58 metres south of Canning Highway. The use of this crossing point should be discouraged, particularly for vision impaired pedestrians. The existing kerb-ramps should be removed to encourage pedestrians to cross Riseley Street at the intersections where crossing facilities are being provided. Recommendation: Do not install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) on the kerb-ramp in the central median island in Riseley Street, 58 metres south of Canning Highway.

6.10 Signing and Pavement marking The Signing and pavement marking drawing has not been prepared for this project. The relative closeness of the intersection to Canning Highway will make it difficult to position the “Traffic Signals Ahead” (W3-3) sign. The existing sign is located in Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent (See Photograph Nos. 3 & 4). These advance warning signs are required to be placed where the stopping distance is less than the stopping sight distance. It is important that Main Roads WA is consulted to determine the recommended locations of the advance warning signs as there may be the need to install the “Prepare to Stop” (W8-27) sign in association with the “Traffic Signals Ahead” sign at the approach to Kearns Crescent. Recommendation: Consult Main Roads WA with respect to installing the “Traffic Signals Ahead” (W3-3) signs for Kearns Crescent and Canning Highway. (IMPORTANT).

6.11 Public Transport – Riseley Street Buses using the Stop on the west side of Riseley Street, located 28 metres south of Kearns Crescent (See Photograph No. 1), will cause traffic congestion especially when the signal is “green” for the northbound traffic in Riseley Street. This bus stop should be located within an embayment to reduce the disruption to traffic approaching the intersection. The parking embayment on the west side of Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent could be used as the bus embayment. Recommendation: Re-locate the Bus Stop on the west side of Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent into an embayment, possibly the car parking bays to the north of Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

6.12 School Bus Stop – Riseley Street The School Bus stop on the east side of Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent (See Photograph No. 3), will cause traffic congestion especially when the signal is “green” for the southbound traffic in Riseley Street. This bus stop is located 17 metres from Kearns Crescent and should be relocated within an embayment to reduce the disruption to traffic approaching the intersection. Alternatively the School Bus Stop should be relocated on the “departure” side of the proposed traffic signals.

Klyne Consultants


Recommendation: Re-locate the Bus Stop on the east side of Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent into an embayment, or to a location to the south of Kearns Crescent. (IMPORTANT).

6.13 Street Lighting With the relocation of the street lighting poles in the central median island of Riseley Street at the Kearns Crescent intersection resulting from recommendation 6.2, the illumination levels should be checked for compliance with the recommendations of AS 1158. The street light at the south-eastern corner of the intersection was not operating on the night inspection (See Photograph No. 6). The street light should be repaired or replaced to provide illumination levels compliant with AS 1158. Recommendation: Ensure that the re-located street light poles and lamps provide illumination levels compliant with AS 1158 for the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection. Replace or repair the street light on the south-eastern corner of the intersection.

6.14 Traffic Signal Operation – Vehicle Queues The Kearns Crescent intersection is located 107 metres south of Canning Highway. The Road Safety Audit undertaken in May, 2008 identified vehicle queues in Riseley Street extending back from Canning Highway across the Kearns Crescent intersection. During peak periods this queue extends even further south through the roundabout at Willcock Street. This has led to “Keep Clear” pavement markings being installed in Riseley Street at Kearns Crescent (See Photographs Nos. 1 & 2). The operation of the traffic signals at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection in conjunction with that of the Canning Highway/Riseley Street should be modelled to ensure that a “grid-lock” does not occur. The phasing and timing of the two traffic signal installations should be designed to ensure that vehicle queues do not extend into either intersection. Recommendation: Ensure that the phasing and timing of the traffic signal operation for the Canning Highway/Riseley Street intersection are linked with that of the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent signals to make sure that vehicle queues do not extend into either intersection. (IMPORTANT).

7.0 CONCLUSIONS This audit has been carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design, which could be altered or removed to improve the safety of the project. The identified problems for this stage of the design have been noted in this report. It is IMPERATIVE that if the road safety issues identified are not satisfactorily addressed and resolved, the proposed installation of traffic signals at the Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent should NOT proceed. If traffic signals incorporating phases to assist pedestrians crossing Riseley Street and Kearns Crescent are not installed, the establishment of a lower area-wide speed limit for sections of Riseley Street and Kearns Crescent should be pursued. Changes to the kerb line geometry and traffic islands at the intersection should be made to address the recorded right-angle and right-turn through crashes. The above recommendations are forwarded for consideration and implementation.

Michael Klyne, principal of Klyne Consultants will be pleased to discuss any aspects of the analysis, inspection, report and recommendations.

Michael Klyne Assoc CEng. Dip TRP MAppSc. Klyne Consultants. Phone (08) 93858447. August 30, 2010.

Klyne Consultants


8.0 DOCUMENTS USED DURING THE AUDIT. 1. AustRoads Guide to Road Safety – Part 6 "Road Safety Audit". 2. AustRoads Guide to Road Design – Part 4A "Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections". 3. AustRoads Guide to Road Design – Part 6A "Pedestrian & Cyclist Paths”. 4. AustRoads Guide to Road Design – Part 6B "Roadside Environmnet". 5. AustRoads Guide to Road Design – Part 3 "Geometric Design". 6. Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) Road Safety Audit Operational Guidelines, 1995. 7. Existing Road Stage, Road Safety Audit – Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent intersection, Ardross by

Traffic and Transport Solutions (May 2008). 8. Preliminary Design Drawing (No. 5343A1-07E) for Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent Intersection –

Traffic Signal Installation – City of Melville. 9. Australian Standard AS 1742.2 – Manual of Uniform Control Devices – Part 2: Traffic control

devices for general use. 10. Australian Standard AS 1428.4:1992 – Design for access and mobility Part 4: Tactile Ground

Surface Indicators for the orientation of people with vision impairment.

Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd

Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – Riseley Street/Kearns Crescent Intersection, Ardross.

APPENDIX ‘A’

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF INTERSECTION

Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:2000

DISCLAIMER - Whilst the City of Melville makes every effort to ensure the information contained herein is up-to-date and accurate it accepts no liability for any loss or damage howsoever caused as a result of reliance upon information contained in this document.



APPENDIX ‘B’

DESIGN DRAWING



APPENDIX ‘C’

SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLIST

Checklist 2: Preliminary design stage audit

Page 1

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

2.1 General topics 2.1.1 Changes since previous audit Do the conditions for which the scheme was originally designed still apply? (for example, no changes to the surrounding network, area activities or traffic mix).

Has the general form of the project design remained unchanged since previous audit (if any)? Previous Audit was for “Existing Road”

2.1.2 Drainage Will the scheme drain adequately?

Gully locations should be reviewed for effective storm water collection.

Has the possibility of surface flooding been adequately addressed, including overflow from surrounding or intersecting drains and water courses?

2.1.3 Climatic conditions Has consideration been given to weather records or local experience that may indicate a particular problem? (for example, snow, ice, wind, fog)

2.1.4 Landscaping If any landscaping proposals are available, are they compatible with safety requirements? (for example, sight lines and hazards in clear zones)

The trees in the central median island of Riseley Street north of Kearns Crescent can obscure the traffic signal aspects.

2.1.5 Services Does the design adequately deal with buried and overhead services? (especially in regard to overhead clearances, etc)

Advertising sign in the central median in Riseley Street, south of Kearns Cres to be removed to accommodate traffic signals.

Has the location of fixed objects or furniture associated with services been checked, including the position of poles?

Planter boxes and “improvements” for al-fresco dining within the clear zone.

2.1.6 Access to property and developments Can all accesses be used safely? (entry and exit/merging)

Location of 900 parking bays in Kearns Crescent, on both sides of Riseley Street close to intersection.

Is the design free of any downstream or upstream effects from points of access, particularly near intersections?

See Above

Have rest areas and truck parking accesses been checked for adequate sight distance, etc?

Vehicle reversing out of the 900 parking bays have limited sight lines to oncoming traffic.

2.1.7 Adjacent developments Does the design handle accesses to major adjacent generators of traffic and developments safely?

Vehicle queues extend across the Kerns Crescent intersection from Canning Highway.

Is the driver’s perception of the road ahead free of misleading effects of any lighting or traffic signals on an adjacent road?

Advance warning of the Traffic Signals difficult to sign – confusion with Canning Highway

2.1.8 Emergency vehicles and access Has provision been made for safe access and movements by emergency vehicles?

Checklist 2: Preliminary design stage audit continued …..

Page 2

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Does the design and positioning of medians and vehicle barriers allow emergency vehicles to stop and turn without unnecessarily disrupting traffic?

There are no traffic islands proposed for Kearns Crescent. Turning vehicles conflict with vehicles stopped at the approach to Riseley Street

2.1.9 Future widening and/or realignments If the scheme is only a stage towards a wider or dual carriageway is the design adequate to impart this message to drivers? (Is the reliance on signs minimal/appropriate, rather than excessive?)

Closeness to Canning Highway – difficult to sign (See Photograph Nos. 1 & 2).

Is the transition between single and dual carriageway (either way) handled safely? N/A- Single stage project

2.1.10 Staging of the scheme If the scheme is to be staged or constructed at different times:

- are the construction plans and program arranged to ensure maximum safety?

- do the construction plans and program include specific safety measures, signing; adequate transitional geometry, etc. for any temporary arrangements?

N/A- Single stage project N/A- Single stage project

2.1.11 Staging of the works If the construction is to be split into several contracts, are they arranged safely?

Single stage construction.

2.1.12 Maintenance Can maintenance vehicles be safely located?

2.2 Design issues (general) 2.2.1 Design standards Is the design speed and speed limit appropriate? (for example, consider the terrain, function of the road)

60 km/h speed zone.

Has the appropriate design vehicle and check vehicle been used?

Check turning vehicle template for “larger” than 12.5m radius SU vehicle.

2.2.2 Typical cross sections Are lane widths, shoulders, medians and other cross section features adequate for the function of the road?

Traffic lane widths of 3.1m proposed – Buses should be accommodated in the lerbside lanes.

Is the width of traffic lanes and carriageway suitable in relation to:

- alignment? - traffic volume? - vehicle dimensions? - the speed environment? - combinations of speed and traffic volume?

Are overtaking/climbing lanes provided if needed? N/A

Have adequate clear zones been achieved? Al-fresco dining on south-eastern corner.

2.2.3 The effect of cross sectional variation Is the design free of undesirable variations in cross section design?

See above for Al-fresco dining on SE Corner. Check the level of the paved area for the Al-fresco dining on the NE corner for roadside hazard.


Page 3

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Are crossfalls safe? (particularly where sections of existing highway have been used or there have been compromises to accommodate accesses, etc)

Does the cross section avoid unsafe compromises such as narrowings at bridge approaches or past physical features?

Narrow cross-section of Kearns Crescent behind right-angled parking bays.

2.2.4 Roadway layout Are all traffic management features designed to avoid creating unsafe conditions?

Is the layout of road markings and reflective materials able to deal satisfactorily with changes in alignment? (particularly where the alignment may be substandard)

Pavement markings to be installed to comply with MRWA standards

2.2.5 Shoulders and edge treatment Are the following safety aspects of shoulder provision satisfactory:

- provision of sealed or unsealed shoulders? - width and treatment on embankments? - crossfalls of shoulders?

N/A - No shoulders – kerbed roads.

Are the shoulders likely to be safe if used by slow-moving vehicles or cyclists? N/A

Are any rest areas and truck parking areas safely designed? N?A – No rest areas provided

2.2.6 Effect of departures from standards or guidelines Any approved departures from standards or guidelines: is safety maintained?

Any hitherto undetected departures from standards: is safety maintained? Location of traffic signal pedestals at the

approaches from Kearns Crescent.

2.3 Alignment details 2.3.1 Geometry of horizontal and vertical alignment Do the horizontal and vertical design fit together correctly?

The location of the Intersection is beyond a curve in Kearns Crescent.

Is the design free of visual cues that would cause a driver to misread the road characteristics? (for example, visual illusions, subliminal delineation such as lines of trees, poles, etc)

The placement of traffic signal pedestal (and aspects) to face drivers approaching Riseley Street in Kearns Crescent.

Does the alignment provide for speed consistency? Lower speed regime in Kearns Crescent.

2.3.2 Visibility; sight distance Are horizontal and vertical alignments consistent with the visibility requirements?

Curvilinear geometry of Kearns Crescent

Will the design be free of sight line obstructions due to safety fences or barriers?

- boundary fences? - street furniture? - parking facilities? - signs? - landscaping? - bridge abutments? - parked vehicles in laybys or at the kerb? - queued traffic?

N/A No bridge abutments


Page 4

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Are railway crossings, bridges and other hazards all conspicuous? N/A – there are no Railway Crossings or

Bridges.

Is the design free of any other local features which may affect visibility?

The right-angled parking bays in Kearns Cres. close to the intersection

2.3.3 New/existing road interface Does the interface occur well away from any hazard? (for example, a crest, a bend, a roadside hazard or where poor visibility/distractions may occur)

The need to ban parking in Kearns Crescent, close to the Traffic Signalised intersection of Riseley Street.

If carriageway standards differ, is the change effected safely?

Is the transition where the road environment changes (for example, urban to rural; restricted to unrestricted; lit to unlit) done safely?

N/A – Urban road environment

Has the need for advance warning been considered? Difficult to install advance warning for Traffic Signals

2.3.4 Readability of the alignment by drivers Will the general layout, function and broad features be recognised by drivers in sufficient time?

Advance warning sign for traffic signals and/or “Prepare to Stop”

Will approach speeds be suitable and can drivers correctly track through the scheme?

2.4 Intersections 2.4.1 Visibility to and at intersections Are horizontal and vertical alignments at the intersection or on the approaches to the intersection consistent with the visibility requirements?

Sight lines to traffic signals obscured by road geometry and signal aspect location.

Will drivers be aware of the presence of the intersection? (especially on the minor road approach)

Sight lines to traffic signals obscured by road geometry and signal aspect location.

Will the design be free of sight line obstructions due to: - safety fences or barriers? - boundary fences? - street furniture? - parking facilities? - signs? - landscaping? - bridge abutments?

Trees in median will partially obscure traffic signal aspects. N/A – no bridges

Are railway crossings, bridges and other hazards near intersections conspicuous? N/A – No Railway Crossings

Will the design be free of any local features which adversely affect visibility?

Drivers reversing out of the right-angled parking bays have poor sight lines to traffic.

Will intersection sight lines be obstructed by permanent or temporary features such as parked vehicles in laybys, or by parked or queued traffic generally?

2.4.2 Layout, including the appropriateness of type Is the type of intersection selected (cross roads, T, roundabout, signalised, etc) appropriate for the function of the two roads?

Intersection layout of Kearns Crescent does not incorporate traffic islands to separate opposing traffic flows.

Are the proposed controls (Give Way, Stop, Signals, etc) appropriate for the particular intersection?

The proposed traffic signal controlled intersection relative to Canning Highway should be checked for operational issues.


Page 5

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Are junction sizes appropriate for all vehicular movements? Turning movement to be checked for large SU

Are the intersections free of any unusual features which could affect road safety?

No separation of opposing traffic movement in Kearns Crescent.

Are the lane widths and swept paths adequate for all vehicles? Turning movement to be checked for large SU

Is the design free of any upstream or downstream geometric features that could affect safety? (for example, merging of lanes)

Vehicle queues from the Canning Highway traffic signals extend into the intersection.

Are the approach speeds consistent with the intersection design?

Where a roundabout is proposed: - have pedal cycle movements been considered? - have pedestrian movements been considered? - are details regarding the circulating carriageway sufficient?

N/A – no roundabouts proposed

2.4.3 Readability by drivers Will the general type, function and broad features be perceived correctly by drivers?

Traffic signal aspects at Riseley Street not clearly visible to drivers approaching in Kearns Crescent

Are the approach speeds and likely positions of vehicles as they track through the scheme safe?

Right-turning vehicles from Riseley Street into Kearns Crescent.

Is the design free of sunrise or sunset problems that may create a hazard for motorists?

2.5 Special road users 2.5.1 Adjacent land Will the scheme be free of adverse effects from adjacent activity and intensity of land use? (If not, what special measures are needed?)

The Al-fresco dining areas on the NE and SE corners of the intersection to be “protected”

2.5.2 Pedestrians Have pedestrian needs been satisfactorily considered?

If footpaths are not specifically provided, is the road layout safe for use by pedestrians? (particularly at blind corners or on bridges)

Pedestrian traffic through the al-fresco dining area

Are pedestrian subways or footbridges sited to provide maximum use? (i.e. Is the possibility of pedestrians crossing at grade in their vicinity minimised?)

N/A – there are no Subways or Bridges

Has specific provision been made for pedestrian crossings, school crossings or pedestrian signals?

Where present, are these facilities sited to provide maximum use with safety?

Are pedestrian refuges/kerb extensions provided where needed?

Has specific consideration been given to provision required for special groups? (for example, young, elderly, disabled, deaf or blind)

The kerb-ramp on the north-eastern corner is at a gradient of 20.8%

2.5.3 Cyclists Have the needs of cyclists been satisfactorily considered, especially at intersections?

Only in Riseley Street – no facilities in Kearns Crescent.


Page 6

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Have cycle lanes been considered? Check width of on-road cycle lanes

Are all cycleways of standard or adequate design?

On-road cycle lane 1.0m wide in Riseley St, south of Kearns Cres.

Where a need for shared pedestrian/cycle facilities exits, have they been safely treated?

Where cycleways terminate at intersections or adjacent to the carriageway, has the transition treatment been handled safely?

Have any needs for special cycle facilities been satisfactorily considered? (for example, cycle signals)

No cyclist traffic signals proposed

2.5.4 Motorcyclists Has the location of devices or objects that might destabilise a motorcycle been avoided on the road surface?

Level difference between paved area for Al-fresco and road at NE corner

Will warning or delineation be adequate for motorcyclists? See above

Has barrier kerb been avoided in high-speed areas? See above

In areas more likely to have motorcycles run off the road is the roadside forgiving or safely shielded?

See above

2.5.5 Equestrians and stock Have the needs of equestrians been considered, including the use of verges or shoulders and rules regarding the use of the carriageway?

N/A - Urban area – no equestrian or Stock

Can underpass facilities be used by equestrians/stock? N/A – No underpasses

2.5.6 Freight Have the needs of truck drivers been considered, including turning radii and lane widths?

2.5.7 Public transport Has public transport been catered for?

Have the needs of public transport users been considered?

Have the manoeuvring needs of public transport vehicles been considered?

Bus stops in Riseley Street at the approach to the proposed traffic signals.

Are bus stops well positioned for safety? See above

2.5.8 Road maintenance vehicles Has provision been made for road maintenance vehicles to be used safely at the site?

2.6 Signs and lighting 2.6.1 Lighting Is this project to be lit? Will safety be maintained if the project is not lit?

Is the design free of features that make illuminating sections of the road difficult? (for example, shadow from trees or overbridges)


Page 7

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Has the question of siting of lighting poles been considered as part of the general concept of the scheme?

Location of Street light poles to be determined.

Are frangible or slip-base poles to be provided?

Are any special needs created by ambient lighting? Will safety be maintained if special treatments are not provided?

Have the safety consequences of vehicles striking lighting poles (of any type) been considered?

2.6.2 Signs Are signs appropriate for their location?

There are no Signing Plans prepared

Are signs located where they can be seen and read in adequate time? N/A

Will signs be readily understood? N/A

Are signs located so that visibility to and from accesses and intersecting roads is maintained? N/A

Are signs appropriate to the driver's needs? (for example, destination signs, advisory speed signs, etc) N/A

Have the safety consequences of vehicles striking sign posts been considered? N/A

Are signs located so that drivers' sight distance is maintained? N/A

Where signs are to be located in the clear zone, are they frangible or adequately shielded by a crash barrier? N/A

2.6.3 Marking and delineation Has the appropriate standard of delineation and marking been adopted?

Pavement marking drawings not prepared.

Are the proposed markings consistent with the works in the adjoining section of the route?

N/A

Are the previous/adjacent markings to be upgraded? If not, will safety be maintained?

N/A details shown are not consistent with MRWA guidelines.

2.7 Traffic management 2.7.1 Traffic flow and access restrictions Can traffic volumes from the proposed scheme be safely accommodated on existing sections of road?

Consequences of vehicle queues from Canning Highway to be analysed and accommodated?

Have parking provision and parking control been adequately considered?

Can any turn bans be implemented without causing problems at adjacent intersections?

Has the effect of access to future developments been considered?

Is safety maintained for any traffic diverting to other roads? (for example, to avoid a traffic control device)

2.7.2 Overtaking and merges Are overtaking sight distance and stopping distance adequate?

Two-lanes in Riseley Street

Have suitable shoulder widths been provided at lane drop merges?

N/A – no shoulders.


Page 8

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

Have standard signs and markings been provided for any lane drop? N/A – No lane drops proposed

Has adequate sight distance been provided to any lane drop? N/A – No lane drop

Are shoulders wide enough opposite access points and intersections? N/A – see above

2.7.3 Rest areas and stopping zones Are there sufficient roadside stopping areas, rest areas and truck parking areas?

N/A – there are no Rest Areas

Are any entries and exits to rest areas or truck parking areas safe?

N/A – see above.

2.7.4 Construction and operation If the scheme is to be constructed 'under traffic', can this be done so safely?

It will require the development of a Traffic Management Plan for the Construction works

Can the scheme be safely constructed?

Have the maintenance requirements been adequately considered?

Is safe access to and from the works available?

2.8 Additional questions to be considered for development proposals

2.8.1 Horizontal alignment Is visibility adequate for drivers and pedestrians at proposed accesses?

This is NOT a development proposal.

Is adequate turning space provided for the volume and speed of traffic? N/A

Are curve radii and forward visibility satisfactory? N/A

Are sight and stopping distances adequate? N/A

2.8.2 Vertical alignment Are gradients satisfactory?

N/A

Are sight and stopping distances adequate?

2.8.3 Parking provision Is on-site parking adequate to avoid on-street parking and associated risks?

N/A

Are parking areas conveniently located? N/A

Is adequate space provided in parking areas for circulation and intersection sight distance? N/A

2.8.4 Servicing facilities Are off street loading/unloading areas adequate?

N/A

Are turning facilities for large vehicles provided in safe locations?

N/A

Is emergency vehicle access adequate? N/A


Page 9

Issue

Yes

No

Comment

2.8.5 Signs and markings Have necessary traffic signs and road markings been provided as part of a development?

N/A

Is priority clearly defined at all the intersection points within the car park and access routes?

N/A

Will the signs and markings be clear in all conditions, including day/night, rain, fog, etc?

N/A

2.8.6 Landscaping Does landscaping maintain visibility at intersections, bends, accesses and pedestrian locations?

N/A

Has tree planting been avoided where vehicles are likely to run off the road? N/A

2.8.7 Traffic management Have any adverse area-wide effects been addressed?

Right-angles parking bays in Kearns Crescent close to Riseley Street.

Will the design keep travel speeds at the safe level?

Are the number and locations of accesses appropriate? Right-angled parking bays

Are the facilities for public transport services safely located? Bus stops at approach to Traffic Signals

Are any bicycle facilities safely located in respect to vehicular movements?

Check the width of the on-road cycle lane cor compliance with Austroads

Are pedestrian facilities adequate and safely located?

2.8.8 Other Has appropriate street lighting been provided?

Illumination levels to be checked with the relocation of light poles.

Are any roadside hazards appropriately dealt with? Kerb and level difference on NE corner

Has safe pedestrian access to the development been provided?

TGSI for mid-block kerb-ramps could encourage vision impaired pedestrians to cross Riseley Street at this location.

2.9 Any other matter 2.9.1 Safety aspects not already covered Have all unusual or hazardous conditions associated with special events been considered?

Is the road able to safely handle oversize vehicles, or large vehicles like trucks, buses, emergency vehicles, road maintenance vehicles?

Turning movement (right-turns) for large vehicles to be checked.

If required, can the road be closed for special events in a safe manner?

If applicable, are special requirements of scenic or tourist routes satisfied?

Have all other matters which may have a bearing on safety been addressed?



APPENDIX ‘D’

PHOTOGRAPHS

Klyne Consultants Pty Ltd.


PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 1. Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent, view North. Note: The location of the Bus Stand, relative to the intersection, the visibility of the traffic signals at Canning Highway.

Photograph No. 2. Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent, view North. Note: The location of the street trees, lighting standard, advertising sign in the median at the approach to Kearns Cres.



PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 3. Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent, view South. Note: The location of School Bus Stop, advertising sign, street lighting poles and trees in the central median island.

Photograph No. 4. Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent, view South. Note: The illumination levels, advertising sign in the median, “unprotected” al-fresco café located within the clear zone.



PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 5. Kearns Crescent, west of Riseley Street, view East. Note: The 900 parking bays close to the intersection, Al-fresco dining area on the north-east corner.

Photograph No. 6. Kearns Crescent, west of Riseley Street, view East. Note: The street light in the south-east corner not operating, poor illumination levels. “Stop” sign on left not visible.



PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 7. Kearns Crescent, east of Riseley Street, view West. Note: The 900 parking close to the intersection, “Stop” sign not readily visible to drivers approaching intersection.

Photograph No. 8. Kearns Crescent, east of Riseley Street, view West. Note: The limestone planter box well within the clear zone, the “Stop” signs not visible to approaching drivers.



PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 9. Riseley Street, view north across Kearns Crescent. Note: Pedestrians crossing the road, the embayed parking in Riseley Street, north of Kearns Crescent

Photograph No. 10. Riseley Street, south of Canning Highway view north-west. Note: Pedestrians crossing Riseley Street at the “crossing” south of Canning Highway, veranda posts close to kerb.



PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph No. 11. Kearns Crescent, north-east corner. Note: Non-frangible planter boxes well within the clear zone, side-entry drainage gully blocked, “hump” at intersection.

Photograph No. 12. Riseley Street, south of Kearns Crescent view North. Note: The shop-front awnings and tree will restrict the view of drivers to the Aspects of the proposed traffic signals.

PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS · Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – South Western Highway –...

Documents

Transcript of PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNALS · Road Safety Audit (Preliminary Design) – South Western Highway –...