road safety audit stage 1/2
TRANSCRIPT
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
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 2
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 3
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
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 4
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 5
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 6
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 7
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
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA 8
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.
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
APPENDIX A – SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
(Documents Forming the Audit Brief)
Drawings:
Title Number
Ponders End – General Arrangement
1000001689-4-010-01
Ponders End – General Arrangement
1000001689-4-010-02
Ponders End – General Arrangement
1000001689-4-010-03
Ponders End - General Arrangement
1000001689-4-010-04
Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis
1000001689-4-611-01
Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis
1000001689-4-611-02
Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis
1000001689-4-611-03
Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis
1000001689-4-611-04
Ponders End – Swept Path Analysis
1000001689-4-611-05
Other documents: -
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
APPENDIX B – LOCATION PLAN
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA
© Project Centre 2016 Ponders End, Enfield – Stage 1 RSA