Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2

Road Safety Audit - Stage 1

Ponders End, Enfield

London Borough of Enfield

January 2016

© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA ii

Document Control

Project Centre has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions from the London

Borough of Enfield. Project Centre shall not be liable for the use of any information

contained herein for any purpose other than the sole and specific use for which it was

prepared.

Report

Reference Issue Description Originator Checked Authorised

1000001689-

RSA

01 Final Beth Newiss

28/01/2016

John Bowman

28/01/2016

Tim Mantle

29/01/2016

Contact

Tim Mantle

Head of Traffic & Transportation

[email protected]

020 7203 8401

Project Centre

1st Floor Holborn Gate

330 High Holborn

London

WC1V 7QT

© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA iii

CONTENTS PAGE PAGE

NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SAFETY ISSUES RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 2

3. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE RSA OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 6

APPENDIX A – SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS EXAMINED A

APPENDIX B – LOCATION PLAN B

© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on a series of proposals

within the ‘Mini Holland Initiative’, at Ponders End, Enfield. The Audit was requested by

the Design Team (Project Centre) and was carried out in January 2016.

1.2 The Audit Team were as follows:

Beth Newiss MSoRSA (Team Leader)

John Bowman MSoRSA (Team Member)

1.3 The Client Organisation:-

London Borough of Enfield

1.4 The Design Team:-

Asim Zeb – Principal Engineer - Project Centre

1.5 The Audit was undertaken in accordance with procedures laid out in the Design

Manual for Roads and Bridges - HD 19/15 for Road Safety Audits, and a site visit. The

Audit comprised an examination of the drawings and documents. All problems raised

at this Stage 1 Road Safety Audit are detailed in a Location Plan, enclosed as

Appendix B.

1.6 A site visit was undertaken on Wednesday 20th January 2016, the weather was fine

and the road surface dry. During this site visit the Audit Team noted that Ponders End

is made up of a series of commercial and residential properties. Pedestrian and

vehicular movement was constant with all types of road users being observed. This is

a bus route.

1.7 The Audit Team were not presented with any up to date collision data for this Stage 1

Road Safety Audit. Having retrieved basic information from CrashMap it has been

noted that since the 2010 there have been 27 Slight, 2 Serious and 1 Fatal collisions

recorded within the vicinity of the proposals. Without full collision data the Audit Team

cannot ascertain the reasons for these collisions therefore cannot comment further.

1.8 The Audit Team were not presented with any traffic flow for the location.

1.9 The Audit Team have not been advised of any Departure from Standards

1.10 The Audit Team have examined and reported only on highway safety implications of

the scheme as presented and have not examined or verified the compliance of the

designs to any other criteria.


2. SAFETY ISSUES RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

2.1 GENERAL

2.1.1 The drawings and documentation provided make no reference to provisions of the

following:

A. Lighting – re-location of existing or new;

B. Drainage – re-location of existing or new;

C. Signage – relocation of existing or the introduction of new;

D. Chambers and statutory undertaker covers – removal / re-location or provision of

‘Grip-Top’ covers where they fall within cycle lanes, junction turning arcs or

footways.

E. Street Furniture - removal or retention of;

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that all information be provided to the Audit

Team, and in accordance with the Local Authority policy.

2.2 NON MOTORISED USER PROVISION

2.2.1 PROBLEM

Location: A - Throughout the scheme

Summary: Lack of tactile paving may result in pedestrian injury.

Detail: The Audit Team note that there are locations across junctions throughout the

scheme that have not been detailed with tactile paving. The introduction of such

facilities provides pedestrians a suitable location to cross the carriageway. Failure to

introduce these may result in pedestrians attempting to cross at unsuitable locations,

resulting in personal injury or conflict with approaching vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION: Introduce tactile paving in accordance with local standard.

Designer Response: Recommendation accepted. Tactile paving have been

introduced where necessary and shown on the detail design plans.

Client Response: Recommendation accepted. Tactile paving to be specified at all

crossing points to highlight to those with sight-loss the presence of a kerb lower than

25mm.


2.2.2 PROBLEM

Location: B - Cycle Lane, particularly alongside Bus Stops

Summary: Introduction of cycle lane on the inside of Bus Stop may result in cycle /

pedestrian conflict.

Detail: The Audit Team notes that the proposed cycle lanes are designed to continue

on the inside of the existing bus stops, separated by a kerb line. It is not clear if the

kerb lines at the bus stops are raised to assist passenger access or not. No specific

arrangements appear to have been provided for pedal cyclists to negotiate through

the bus stops; thereby Increasing the risk of conflict between passengers getting on or

off and cyclists travelling along the cycle lane.

RECOMMENDATION: Design Team to liaise with the LA Cycling officer, Highway

engineers and bus operators in respect to providing the most suitable arrangement for

all road users, including those with disabilities. Full details to be provided for the

detailed Stage 2 RSA.

Designers Response: Recommendation accepted. The bus boarder arrangement has

been accepted by the LA and TFL cycling officers. LA to mount a temporary CCTV

camera to monitor the bus boarders along Ponders End High Street.

Client Response: To confirm, at each of the 4 bus stops within the scheme a level

difference of 140mm is proposed between carriageway and footway across the

boarding area to aid accessibility for bus users. At each stop a narrow through-lane

for cycles rises from roadway level to footway level adjacent to the kerbline providing

cyclists, especially less confident ones, with the option of passing a dwelling bus on

the inside; thus directing cyclists through the same space occupied, intermittently, by

people boarding and alighting the bus. This is a compromise solution reflecting the

fact that there is not sufficient space at the four stops for workable ‘floating bus stop’

arrangements. The proposed layout is favoured by cycling officers at both TfL and LBE.

The risk of collision between cyclist and bus user under this arrangement is deemed of

lower concern than the drawback of introducing a permanent break in the cycle

lane, which raises the corresponding hazard of giving cyclists no option than to pull

out into the traffic lane to their right when faced by a dwelling bus. The alternative of

insetting the stops in laybys and forcing buses to cross the path of cyclists twice, once

as they enter the stop and then again as they depart, is similarly deemed a greater

road safety concern than the bus boarder solution. The narrowing of the cycle lane

and the ramp on the approach mitigates the risk of cyclists entering at excessive


speed and surprising bus users boarding or alighting. The designation of the area is

deliberately indistinct, seeking to encourage waiting bus users to keep the space

clear but avoiding implying that cyclists have priority over any other users. With

observed usage of these bus stops high, but cycling levels relatively low, it is

anticipated that pedestrians will dominate the space when buses are present and

that cyclists will accept the need to yield priority or negotiate their way through with

suitable caution. Results of 2-year monitoring released by LB Camden for similar

facilities at two stops in Royal College Street suggest cyclists and bus-users have been

able to share this space without collisions or undue difficulty. Video surveys suggest

cyclists are adept at modifying their speed and course to avoid collisions. LB Enfield

has committed to undertake similar monitoring at Ponders End High Street. An equality

impact assessment is being produced for the scheme and an independent

accessibility audit is being considered for the bus boarders within this process.

2.3 SIGNING LIGHTING AND CARRIAGWAY MARKINGS

2.3.1 PROBLEM

Location: C – Beginning of kerbed cycle lane(s)

Summary: Cyclist personal injury may occur at reduced cycle lane

Detail: The Audit Team note that a ‘Keep Right’ bollard is proposed at the beginning

of each section of kerbed cycle lane. Whilst the Audit Team acknowledge that this

kerbing requires highlighting to prevent it being struck, the proposed details are not

clear. The standard directional bollard is considerably wider than the proposed

kerbing of the cycle lane. Dependent upon what method of identification is provided;

it is possible that it would encroach into the carriageway or the cycle lane, reducing

the width and creating a pinch point. A cyclist may misjudge the gap resulting

personal injury.

RECOMMENDATION: Design Team to liaise with the LA Cycling officer and Highway

engineers in respect to providing the most suitable warning. Full details to be

provided for the detailed Stage 2 RSA.

Designers Response: Recommendation accepted. The design no longer shows

bollards. The use of Orca cycle lane delineators have been proposed to keep the

vehicles away from the cycle lanes/ramps. Note that the cycle lanes are not

mandatory.


Client Response: Recommendation accepted. The amended design, as described

above, should deal with the problem identified.

2.3.2 PROBLEM

Location: D – Central Islands Ponders End / Lincoln Road / Derby Road

Summary: Lack of illuminated feature may result in vehicle / pedestrian or damage

only type collisions.

Details: The Audit Team are concerned that drivers may misjudge the proximity of the

central islands. This may result in vehicles mounting the kerb putting pedestrians at risk

or alternatively damaging vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION: Introduce illuminated ‘Keep Left’ bollards to each central island

in accordance with local standards.

Designers Response: All the central islands within the scheme fall within the area of

raised carriageway, where central and perimeter kerbs are specified at a height of

25mm. The lower kerb height compliments other measures (such as the omission of

normal priority indicators) to help reduce a driver’s typical sense of precedence over

other road users, with the aim of encouraging lower speeds and a more cautious

driving style. Keep left bollards are not essential for central islands with 25mm kerb

heights and the designers feel that adding them risks undermining the effect

described above. The designers deem this drawback to outweigh the potential

benefit of helping drivers judge the position of islands correctly. The overall effect of

the slowing measures should be to reduce the instances of drivers failing to negotiate

manoeuvres correctly. The higher levels of attention drivers will pay to crossing

pedestrians will be the key factor that enables safe and convenient crossing

movements. When pedestrians are present on the islands, drivers should not need

bollards to help steer around them. Occasional over-running of the kerbs in the

absence of pedestrians is not deemed a significant problem.

Client Response: Keep left bollards are to be omitted for the reasons given above.

Under the latest requirements of TSRGD 2016 non-illuminated rebound style bollards

could be retro-fitted with little trouble should the problem described become

apparent.


3. ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE RSA OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

3.1 Any issues that the Audit Team wish to bring to the attention of the Client Officer

which are not covered by the road safety implications of this audit have been

included in the following section. These issues could include maintenance items,

operational issues or poor existing provision. It should be understood however, that in

raising these issues, the Audit Team do not warrant that a full review of the existing

highway environment has been undertaken beyond the scope of the Audit.

3.2 Whilst on site the Audit Team noted that a number of cars parked within the footway

area outside no’s 254 – 274 Ponders End. An entrance has been provided to allow

vehicles access to ‘The Goat’ public house. No details have been provided as to

whether vehicles will still be allowed access onto the footway outside of no 254-274,

nor any preventative measures detailed to stop this occurring. This should be

reviewed in accordance with the scheme.

3.3 The Audit Team note that the incorrect tactile layout has been detailed at the signal

controlled crossing point on Ponders End to the north of Garfield Road; the tactile

should be laid in a ‘L’ shape in accordance with guidance.


4. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT

The Audit has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the

design that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the

scheme. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with

suggestions for safety improvements, which we recommend should be studied for

implementation.

No member of the Safety Audit Team has been involved with the design of the

measures

Audit Team Leader

Beth Newiss MSoRSA

Team Member:

John Bowman MSoRSA


QUALITY

It is the policy of Project Centre to supply Services that meet or exceed our clients’

expectations of Quality and Service. To this end, the Company's Quality Management

System (QMS) has been structured to encompass all aspects of the Company's

activities including such areas as Sales, Design and Client Service.

By adopting our QMS on all aspects of the Company, Project Centre aims to achieve

the following objectives:

Ensure a clear understanding of customer requirements;

Ensure projects are completed to programme and within budget;

Improve productivity by having consistent procedures;

Increase flexibility of staff and systems through the adoption of a common

approach to staff appraisal and training;

Continually improve the standard of service we provide internally and

externally;

Achieve continuous and appropriate improvement in all aspects of the

company;

Our Quality Management Manual is supported by detailed operational

documentation. These relate to codes of practice, technical specifications, work

instructions, Key Performance Indicators, and other relevant documentation to form a

working set of documents governing the required work practices throughout the

Company.

All employees are trained to understand and discharge their individual responsibilities

to ensure the effective operation of the Quality Management System.


SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS EXAMINED

(Documents Forming the Audit Brief)

Drawings:

Title Number

Ponders End – General Arrangement

1000001689-4-010-01


1000001689-4-010-02


1000001689-4-010-03

Ponders End - General Arrangement

1000001689-4-010-04

Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis

1000001689-4-611-01


1000001689-4-611-02


1000001689-4-611-03


1000001689-4-611-04


1000001689-4-611-05

Other documents: -


APPENDIX B – LOCATION PLAN

Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2

Documents

Transcript of Road Safety Audit Stage 1/2