Road Safety Audits (2004)

National Academies Press: OpenBook

Chapter: APPENDIX C - SAMPLE AUDIT REPORTS

Unfortunately, this book can't be printed from the OpenBook. If you need to print pages from this book, we recommend downloading it as a PDF.

Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.

Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX C - SAMPLE AUDIT REPORTS." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Road Safety Audits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23343.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 APPENDIX C Sample Audit Reports The following four audit reports are included in this appendix: 1. Sample road safety audit report, National Highway Institute 2. HD 19/03 reports 3. Sample road safety audit tool kit 4. Sample state road safety audit reports

42 Sample RSA Report The following is a sample RSA report. This sample has been created using reports submitted by students of the RSA course.

43 Road Safety Audit Report on the Preliminary Design of the Proposed Widening of Route 60 between Milepost 8.7 and 10.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Route 60 is currently a two-lane rural/suburban highway that traverses a two-mile portion of Henderson. The existing speed limit on Route 60 is 45 miles per hour. Adjacent land uses include industrial, commercial, and farming. Major intersections along the corridor include: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ US 60/Borax Drive/US 41A Ohio Drive/Collier Spur Road Old Corydon Road/Community Drive/Route 60 Dana Drive/Route 60. There are numerous driveway accesses and âwide openâ driveways on this section of Route 60. Concerns have been raised in terms of the number of crashes throughout the corridor. Crashes in parts of this section are substantially greater than the statewide average. We have reviewed the three alternative designs to upgrade Route 60 from east of Dana Drive to west of US 41A. All alternatives assume an upgrade of Route 60 from a two-lane section to a five-lane, curb and gutter section (four through lanes plus one two-way center left-turn lane). The proposed typical section also includes a five-foot sidewalk on both the north and south sides of the highway. AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS The following members comprise the audit team. John Smith, Highway Designer Mary Jones, Transportation Engineer Juan Lopez, Highway/Traffic Safety Specialist Sue Ling, Project Manager

44 DATA AND DOCUMENTATION We have reviewed the following data and documentation during the conduct of this audit: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Transportation Cabinet Conceptual/Location Plan for the Corridor/Aerial Mosaic Typical Section Profiles Crash Data ASSUMPTIONS We have based our audit on the following assumptions: The existing highway is built to design standards current at the time. The plans for the proposed widening are according to current design standards. Some entrances and driveways to Route 60 will be eliminated. Utilities are outside clear zone or underground. Project can be extended to highway 425. Pedestrian and bike traffic have been considered. All major intersections will be signalized. SITE VISIT From the documentation, we have identified the following potential safety concerns to concentrate on during the site visit: The number of accesses Center turn lane Railroad crossings Surface drainage Lack of pullout area for bus service Speed limit Pedestrian mobility We visited the site on May 2, 2001 from approximately 1 PM to 3 PM to extrapolate the effects of the proposed plans in light of the current roadway. The weather at the time of our visit was partly cloudy. The existing roadway appears to be well maintained. It is located in an area that is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial. In fact, the area is transitioning from a rural to urban development. Trucks account for 15 percent of total traffic volume. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic is moderate. In two groups, we drove the two-mile stretch of the proposed project several times and walked portions of it. We then compared and contrasted our observations before compiling this report. FINDINGS Our findings and observations are identified below. These findings are the consensus of the team. Overall Concerns Two-Way Center Left Turn. This type of design is used in highly developed, urban commercial areas. Historically, this design type has higher crash rates, including a higher level of head on collisions. Five feet of separation between sidewalk and through traffic lane. Our concern is that pedestrian separation is inadequate. No shoulders for disabled vehicles to pull off. The team does not have any background information to justify the provision of sidewalks in the corridor.

45 â¢ Due to the flat grade of profile, a curb and gutter drainage system might not be adequate and, consequently, water might spread into traffic lane. â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Morning and evening sunlight glare interferes with traffic signals due to east-west alignment. Existing parking adjacent to the mainline causes potential sight distance issues. Snow removal and future maintenance issues might arise due to lack of shoulders. Better access management would minimize number and width of driveways. US 60/Borax Drive/US 41A Blue Alignment Offset to Borax Avenue. The creation of two intersections within close proximity has the potential to increase traffic conflicts. Separate access to Wye Road. Numerous private access points onto Relocated roadway. Green Alignment Skew to Borax Drive Reverse curve Spur from US 60 is not permanently closed Skewed left turn from eastbound US 60 to northbound Borax Drive Red Alignment Access Road from US 41A is too close to the Borax Drive/US 60 intersection. Borax Drive to Ohio Drive Too many driveways Develop collector road between Station 1075 and Ohio Drive for 6 properties (north side of US 60) South side of US 60 buildings, utilities, signs, objects are within clear zone. Ohio Drive/Collier Spur Road Traffic queuing due to railroad grade crossing. No major differences between red and green alternatives. Review detailed traffic studies to determine turning lane requirements. The entrance to Audubon Metals is within the Route 60 intersection. Railroad crossing has no cross arms. Need access management. Reduce wide-open entrances. Community Drive/Old Corydon/US 60 Entrance to Gibbs into Community Drive is too close to US 60 intersection. Proposed intersection alignments do not eliminate skew. Community Drive to Dana Drive Eliminate church accesses onto US 60. Consider access on Dana Drive. Access Management Needed. Eliminate wide-open entrances. Move entrance to Service Tool and Die Company as northwesterly as possible.

46 CONCLUSIONS In our judgment, consideration of the findings should improve the overall safety of the US 60 corridor in Henderson. We also suggest that a subsequent road safety audit take place after the preliminary plans have been completed.

47 Volume 5 Section 2 Annex E Part 2 HD 19/03 Illustrative ReportâA795 Ambridge BypassâRoad Safety Audit Stage 2 ANNEX E: ILLUSTRATIVE REPORT A795 AMBRIDGE BYPASS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 2 E WING AND BARNES PARTNERSHIP November 2004 November 2003 E/1

48 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report results from a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out on the A795 Ambridge Bypass at the request of the Design Organisation: Ambridge Bypass Design Team, DLS Partnership (Highways Division), 12-14 Cathedral Close, Borchester. The Audit was carried out during November 2004. 1.2 The Audit Team membership was as follows: I K Brunel (Ms) BSc, MSc, CEng, MICE, MIHT Ewing and Barnes Partnership (Traffic and Accident Investigation Division) T MacAdam IEng, FIHIE Ewing and Barnes Partnership (Traffic and Accident Investigation Division) Eur Ing. C Chan MEng, CEng, MICE Road Safety Engineering Consultant 1.3 The audit took place at the Erinsborough Office of The Ewing and Barnes Partnership on 17 and 18 November 2004. The audit was undertaken in accordance with the audit brief contained in Highways Agency letter reference HA/11.10.04/001. The audit comprised an examination of the documents provided by the Highways Agencyâs Project Sponsor, South Midlands Regional Office, and listed in the Annex. These documents consisted of a complete set of the draft tender drawings, a summary of the general details of the scheme including traffic flows, predicted queue lengths, non-motorised user counts and desire lines, an A3 plan for the Audit Teamâs use, a copy of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report dated June 2003, details of the response to the issues raised in the Stage 1 Audit, details of other changes to the design since June 2003 and a schedule of Departures from Standards and the relevant approvals contained in the design. A visit to the site of the proposed bypass was made on the morning of Wednesday 17 November 2004. During the site visit the weather was fine and sunny and the existing road surface was dry. 1.4 The terms of reference of the audit are as described in HD 19/03. 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. 1.5 All comments and recommendations are referenced to the detailed design drawings and the locations have been indicated on the A3 plan supplied with the audit brief. 1.6 The proposed A795 Ambridge Bypass incorporates the provision of 2.3km of 7.3m wide single carriageway between Station Road to the south of the A827 and Ambridge Road to the north east of Ambridge village. The scheme includes the provision of 5 priority junctions and a roundabout at the A827 dual carriageway junction. The improvement also encompasses the provision of two lay-bys, the diversion of a footpath and the stopping up of Old Church Lane. 2 ITEMS RAISED AT THE STAGE 1 AUDIT 2.1 The safety aspects of the Ambridge Road Junction were the subject of comment in the June 2003 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report. (Items A3.1 and A3.2) These items remain a problem and are referred to again in this report (paragraph 3.13 below). 2.2 All other issues raised in the Stage 1 Audit have been resolved. 3 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 2 AUDIT 3.1 GENERAL 3.2 PROBLEM Locations: A and N (drawing RSA/S2/001) âAdjacent to the Ambridge railway station. Summary: Risk of an accident between a pedestrian and a vehicle due to potential shortcut to bus stop. A cross-section departure (in that there is no room for provision of a footway) on the existing railway bridge at location A has been reported. The departure has been introduced since the Stage 1 Audit. Although

49 pedestrians have been rerouted to cross the railway using the renovated station footbridge they may still be tempted to use the road bridge as this will provide a much shorter route to the adjacent bus stop (location N). Pedestrians using the road bridge would have to walk on the carriageway and therefore there would be an increased risk of an accident between a vehicle and a pedestrian. RECOMMENDATION Relocate the bus stop currently on the bypass to Station Road. In addition provide pedestrian deterrent paving on the verges on the immediate approaches to the bridge (both sides). 3.3 PROBLEM Locations: B and C (drawing RSA/S2/001)âNorthern verge of Home Farm Road. Summary: Open ditch is a potential hazard to an errant road user. An open ditch is proposed to run along the side of Home Farm Road on the outside of the bend. This ditch is the main outfall for the storm water drainage from much of the bypass and in places is more than 1.5m deep. It is likely to carry substantial quantities of water following heavy rainfall and represents a danger to errant motorists and cyclists. This problem could increase the severity of an accident involving a vehicle or cyclist leaving the carriageway in this location. RECOMMENDATION Provide a safety fence at the back of the grass verge between location B and location C. 3.4 PROBLEM Locations: D and E (drawing RSA/S2/001)âLay-bys north of Old Church Lane. Summary: Lay-by positions provide an increased risk of shunt and right turn accidents. Drivers travelling north will reach the lay-by at location D on their right before the lay-by at location E on their left. Similarly vehicles travelling south will reach the lay-by at E on their right first. Since the lay-bys are not inter-visible and there are no advance signs, drivers could be tempted to cross the carriageway to use the first lay-by that they reach. This problem would increase the number of right turning manoeuvres and therefore increase the potential for accidents between right turning vehicles and vehicles travelling ahead in the opposite direction. It could also increase the likelihood of shunt accidents involving vehicles running into the back of other vehicles waiting to turn right into the lay-by. RECOMMENDATION Reposition the lay-bys so that drivers encounter a lay-by on their nearside first. When relocating the lay-bys ensure that adequate visibility is provided for a driver both entering and leaving the facility. In addition, provide advance signing of both facilities. 3.5 PROBLEM Location: F (drawing RSA/S2/001)âJunction between Old Church Lane and the bypass. Summary: Downhill gradient and limited visibility on sideroad approach increases the risk of overshoot type accidents. The realigned section of Old Church Lane where it meets the bypass has a downhill longitudinal gradient of 7% and limited forward visibility. There is danger of traffic failing to stop at the give way line and skidding into the bypass in bad weather conditions. This feature could result in vehicles on Old Church Lane overrunning the give way line and colliding with through traffic on the bypass. RECOMMENDATION Provide the realigned section of Old Church Lane with a high grip surfacing and additional signs to warn traffic of the give way junction ahead.

50 3.6 PROBLEM Location: G (drawing RSA/S2/001)âOn the bypass midway between Old Church Lane and Home Farm Road adjacent to the northbound lane. Summary: Unprotected embankment could increase the severity of an accident in this location. The safety fence on the west side of the bypass between chainage 1+550 and 1+650 leaves some embankment unprotected. This could increase the severity of an accident involving a vehicle or cyclist leaving the carriageway. RECOMMENDATION Extend the safety fence back to chainage 1+500. 3.7 PROBLEM Locations: H to I (drawing RSA/S2/001)âOn the bypass adjacent to the Westlee dairy. Summary: Headlights of vehicles on the parallel dairy access road could distract and disorientate drivers on the bypass. The access road to the Westlee Diary Depot runs parallel to the bypass for about 250m. We understand that there is considerable vehicular activity on this road at night. The headlights of traffic using this road could be very confusing when viewed from the bypass. This could distract and disorientate drivers on the bypass to the extent they lose control of their vehicles. RECOMMENDATION Provide earth bund, solid fence or similar screen adjacent to Westlee Diary boundary. 3.8 PROBLEM Location: Q (drawing RSA/S2/001)âEntrance to the electricity sub-station north of Home Farm Road. Summary: No provision for service vehicles to stop off the bypass when accessing the sub-station. The entrance gates to the electricity sub-station at chainage 1+900 (location Q) are located such that drivers wishing to enter the compound would have to park on the bypass whilst they unlock the gate. This could result in a vehicle travelling on the bypass colliding with the parked vehicle. It could also encourage vehicles to overtake parked vehicles increasing the risk of head-on collisions. RECOMMENDATION Relocate the gates further back from the edge of the carriageway. If, however, the location of equipment in the compound precludes the relocation of the gates, provide a lay-by or hardstanding area to allow vehicles to wait off the road while the gates are being opened or secured. 3.9 THE ALIGNMENT 3.10 PROBLEM Location: J to L (drawing RSA/S2/001)âCrest to the north of Old Church Lane. Summary: Proposed hazard road marking is not sufficient to discourage drivers from overtaking in this area. The entire length of the bypass between the Ambridge Road Junction (location J) and the Bull Roundabout (location L) is marked with hazard lines (to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions diagram 1004.1) indicating the lack of full overtaking sight distance. The meaning of this lining is not understood by

51 the general public and there is no indication that the visibility reduces appreciably over the crest at chainage 1+250. This problem could increase the potential for accidents involving inappropriate overtaking. RECOMMENDATION Provide 1m carriageway hatch markings (to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions diagram 1013.1B) over the crest. The use of this marking must be coordinated with recommendation 3.13 below. 3.11 THE JUNCTIONS 3.12 PROBLEM Location: L (drawings RSA/S2/001 and RSA/S2/002)âNorth from the Bull Roundabout. Summary: Confusion over the layout of road north of the roundabout may result in inappropriate overtaking. Traffic originating from the existing dual carriageway A827 Borchester Road (which has a mature quickthorn hedge in the central reserve) and turning onto the new bypass (northbound) may be confused into thinking that the new bypass is a dual carriageway, particularly as the old field hedge to the west could be assumed to be in a central reserve and concealing a northbound carriageway. Traffic on the access road to the Westlee Diary could further confuse traffic in this location unless the recommendation at paragraph 3.7 above is implemented. This problem could increase the potential for accidents involving vehicles overtaking in an inappropriate location. RECOMMENDATION Redesign the splitter island and associated hatch markings shown on drawing RSA/S2/002 to accentuate that the bypass is a single carriageway. In addition provide two-way traffic signs (to diagram number 521 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions) on the northbound bypass immediately after the roundabout. 3.13 PROBLEM Location: J (drawings RSA/S2/001 and RSA/S2/003)âNorthbound approach to Ambridge Road Junction. Summary: The road layout on the approach to the junction does not discourage overtaking on this straight downhill section of the bypass. The approach to this junction along the proposed bypass from the south is via a straight downhill section of about 1km length and traffic speeds are likely to be high. The necessity of making sure that overtaking manoeuvres are complete in good time before the central reserve at the junction commences was flagged at the Stage 1 Audit. The current design does not adequately address this issue. As a result there is a potential for overtaking accidents and side impact accidents as overtaking vehicles abruptly move back into the northbound lane before the junction. RECOMMENDATION (a) Provide a continuous prohibitory double white line to diagram 1013.1 from the southern end of the central reserve (location M drawing RSA/S2/003) for a distance of about 340m uphill (FOSD/4 before the nosing), to replace the proposed hazard marking. This will force drivers into a single line well before the junction. Coordination with the recommendation in paragraph 3.10 above is necessary. (b) Reposition the advanced direction sign ADS6 approximately 150m from the junction to warn traffic travelling at higher speeds. (c) Provide âSLOWâ carriageway markings on the approaches to the junction from both the north and south direction to moderate speeds through the junction. (d) Provide hatching within the hard strip to further discourage drivers from attempting to overtake in the short single lane dual carriageway section through the junction.

52 3.14 NON-MOTORISED USERS 3.15 PROBLEM Locations: O and P (See drawing RSA/S2/001)âFormer line of the footpath at the crest to the north of Old Church Lane. Summary: The former footpath alignment may still attract pedestrians to cross at a location with limited visibility. The scheme allows for the diversion of Footpath No 12 so that it crosses the bypass away from the crest curve at location K. The old route may, however, be more attractive to pedestrians. This could result in an accident between a vehicle and pedestrian due to the reduced visibility at the crest curve. RECOMMENDATION Modify landscaping with heavy planting to block old route at the edge of the bypass (location O) and remove the old stile at the field boundary (location P) and replace with solid wall to match existing. 3.16 PROBLEM Location: Throughout the length of the bypass. Summary: The proposed raised ribbed edge line may be hazardous to cyclists at junctions. It is not uncommon for cyclists to use the marginal strip provided along busy bypasses to avoid being intimidated by other vehicles. The drawings indicate that road markings to Diagram 1012.3, raised ribbed markings, will be used as edge line markings. These markings may cause difficulties for cyclists entering or leaving the marginal strip near junctions and result in cyclists losing control of their bicycle. RECOMMENDATION Replace markings to Diagram 1012.3 by those to Diagram 1012.1 for a length of 20m on the approach and exit sides of any junction. 3.17 SIGNING AND LIGHTING 3.18 PROBLEM Location: L (drawings RSA/S2/001 and RSA/S2/002)âwestbound approach to the Bull Roundabout. Summary: The risk of errant vehicle colliding with a lighting column located in front of the safety fence. On the A827 Borchester Road dual carriageway approach to the Bull Roundabout a length of safety fence is proposed to protect a large advance direction sign in the nearside verge. The drawings provided show a lighting column approximately 60 metres from the roundabout located in front of the proposed safety fence. A vehicle leaving the carriageway in this location could run along the length of safety fence into the lighting column, this could significantly increase the severity of an accident occurring in this location. RECOMMENDATION Relocate the proposed lighting column behind the length of safety fence.

53 4 AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT I certify that this audit has been carried out in accordance with HD 19/03. AUDIT TEAM LEADER Ms I K Brunel BSc, MSc, CEng, MICE, MIHT Signed I K Brunel Principal Highway Engineer Traffic and Accident Investigation Division Date 22/11/04 Ewing and Barnes Partnership Albert Square Erinsborough Rutland AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS T MacAdam IEng, FIHIE Eur Ing. C Chan CEng, MICE Senior Engineer Road Safety Engineering Consultant Traffic and Accident Investigation Division 5 Brookside Ewing and Barnes Partnership Post Green Albert Square Wessex Erinsborough Rutland

55 Volume 5 Section 2 Annex F Part 2 HD 19/03 Illustrative ReportâA795 Ambridge BypassâRoad Safety Audit Stage 4 ANNEX F: ILLUSTRATIVE REPORT A795 AMBRIDGE BYPASS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 4 12 MONTH MONITORING REPORT D LS PARTNERSHIP May 2007 November 2003 F/1

56 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report results from the Road Safety Audit Stage 4 - 12 month monitoring carried out on the A795 Ambridge Bypass Scheme as part of DLS Partnership (Maintenance Division) maintenance agreement with the Highway Agency. The report has been produced as part of a routine accident monitoring/Road Safety Audit procedure and the terms of reference for this monitoring report are described in HD 19/03. 1.2 A site visit was conducted on Monday 7th May 2007, during which the road surface was wet as it was raining heavily. 2 SCHEME DETAILS 2.1 The A795 Ambridge Bypass was completed in March 2006 and involved the provision of 2.3km of 7.3m wide single carriageway between Station Road to the south of the A827 and Ambridge Road to the north east of Ambridge village. 2.2 The scheme included the provision of 5 priority junctions and a roundabout at the A827 dual carriageway. The improvement also encompassed the provision of two lay-bys, the diversion of a footpath and the stopping up of Old Church Lane. 2.3 The scheme was subjected to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in June 2003, a Stage 2 Audit in November 2004 and a Stage 3 audit prior to opening in March 2006. 3 ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS 3.1 During the period 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007 a total of 3 personal injury accidents were recorded throughout the 2.3km length of the scheme. The severity of all three accidents was slight. 3.2 The accident frequency on Ambridge bypass has been briefly compared with values predicted in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges COBA manual. The COBA manual predicts an accident frequency of 3.48 accidents a year based on the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow of 18500 vehicles in 2006. 3.3 All three accidents have occurred at different locations throughout the scheme. The location and a brief description of each accident has been included below: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Accident Ref. 1âA827/A795 roundabout. Vehicle 1 from A827 fails to give way at roundabout and runs into vehicle 2. Accident Ref. 2âN/bound approach to Old Church Lane. M/cycle loses control on a patch of oil. Accident Ref. 3âS/bound lay-by north of Old Church Lane. Vehicle 2 travelling north waiting to turn right into lay-by struck in rear by vehicle 1. 3.4 Two of the accidents (references 2 and 3) occurred during the daytime in fine weather on a dry road surface. The remaining accident (reference 1) occurred during the daytime in a period of rain on a wet road surface. 4 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Traffic count data has been obtained from an Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) located on the A795 north of Home Farm Lane. The ATC indicates that the traffic flows along the A795 are 18500 vehicles AADT in 2006. 4.2 No significant congestion has been recorded throughout the scheme in its first year of opening. However, some queuing has been observed on the A827 westbound approach to the A827/A795 roundabout during the am peak period.

57 5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 A brief assessment of the 12-month accident history of the Ambridge Bypass has indicated that the accident frequency is lower than the predicted national average and no common factors or trends have been identified in the data. However, it has been noted that one of the three accidents that have occurred has resulted from a vehicle travelling northbound waiting to turn right into the southbound lay-by being struck from behind. This problem was raised in the Stage 2 Audit report, however there were difficulties in acquiring the land necessary to relocate the lay-by so an Exception Report was approved. 5.2 As this report considers only 12 months of accident data and no common factors or trends have been identified at this early stage no firm conclusions can be drawn from the accident information.

58 Volume 5 Section 2 Annex G Part 2 HD 19/03 Illustrative ReportâA795 Ambridge BypassâRoad Safety Audit Stage 4 ANNEX G: ILLUSTRATIVE REPORT A795 AMBRIDGE BYPASS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 4 36 MONTH MONITORING REPORT D LS PARTNERSHIP May 2009 November 2003 G/1

59 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study 1.2 Study Purpose 2 SCHEME DETAILS 2.1 Description of the Scheme 3 ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS 4 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Traffic Flows 4.2 Traffic Speeds 5 STATEMENT OF SAFETY PROBLEMS ON THE AMBRIDGE BYPASS 5.1 Problems Identified 5.2 Review of Previous Road Safety Audit Reports and Exception Reports 6 OPTIONS FOR TREATMENT 6.1 Accidents Occurring on the A827 dual carriageway approach to the A827/A795 roundabout 6.2 Accidents Involving Cyclists at the A827/A795 roundabout 6.3 Accidents Occurring at the Lay-by 7 CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES I Summary of Accident Record between 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2009 II Summary Accident Plot III Graphs showing Accident Frequency by Year, Month & Day of the Week IV Graphs showing Accident Frequency by Hour of the Day, Weather Conditions & Road Surface Conditions V Graph showing Accidents by Light Conditions

60 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.1.1 This report results from the Road Safety Audit Stage 4 - 36 month monitoring carried out on the A795 Ambridge Bypass Scheme as part of DLS Partnership (Maintenance Division) maintenance agreement with the Highways Agency. The report has been produced as part of a routine accident monitoring / Road Safety Audit procedure and the terms of reference for this monitoring report are described in HD 19/03. 1.1.2 A site visit was conducted on Friday 8th May 2009, during which the weather was overcast and the road surface was dry. 1.2 Study purpose 1.2.1 The purpose of this study is as follows: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ to undertake an in-depth study of the accidents that have occurred on the scheme during the three years since opening; to identify any road accident problems; to suggest possible measures that would contribute to accident reduction on the scheme; to review the recommendations from the Road Safety Audit Reports at Stages 1 to 3 and the Exception Reports to identify if they had any effect on the scheme. 2 SCHEME DETAILS 2.1 Description of the scheme 2.1.1 The A795 Ambridge Bypass was completed in March 2006 and involved the provision of 2.3km of 7.3m wide single carriageway between Station Road to the south of the A827 and Ambridge Road to the north east of Ambridge village. 2.1.2 The scheme included the provision of 5 priority junctions and a roundabout at the A827 dual carriageway. The improvement also encompassed the provision of two lay-bys, the diversion of a footpath and the stopping up of Old Church Lane. 2.1.3 The road is subject to the national speed limit and with the exception of the A827 / A795 Bull Roundabout the scheme is unlit. 2.1.4 The scheme was subjected to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in June 2003, a Stage 2 Audit in November 2004, a Stage 3 Audit prior to opening in March 2006 and a Stage 4 12 month monitoring report in May 2007. 3 ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS 3.1.1 During the 36 month period between 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2009 a total of 11 personal injury accidents were recorded throughout the 2.3km length of the scheme. There have been 2 (18%) serious accidents and 9 (82%) accidents that were slight in severity. No accidents involving fatalities have been recorded during the 36 month period. These figures are generally consistent with national average values taken from the DfT publication âRoad Accidents in Great Britainâ (RAGB) which indicates that on major roads with a 60mph speed limit 4% of accidents were fatal, 21% were serious and 75% were slight in severity. 3.1.2 Stick diagrams for these accidents together with a breakdown of accident types are included in Appendix I. 3.1.3 Appendix II shows a plot of the location of each of the accidents. Generally this diagram shows that the accidents are evenly distributed throughout the scheme, however there is a cluster of 4 accidents at the A827/A795 roundabout and two accidents at the lay-by north of Old Church Lane. 3.1.4 The information contained in the accident data has been compared to national averages from the DfT publication âRoad Accidents in Great Britainâ (RAGB) and the âDesign Manual for Roads and Bridges COBA manualâ below and in Appendices III to V:

61 3.1.5 Accident Frequency (see Appendix III) Year (01/04/06 to 31/04/09) 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total Number of Accidents 3 3 5 11 3.1.6 The above table indicates that there have been on average 3.67 personal injury accidents a year along the Ambridge bypass. The COBA manual predicts an accident frequency of 3.76 a year based on the year 2008 AADT traffic flow of 19000 vehicles. 3.1.7 Accidents by Weather, Road Surface and Light Conditions (see Appendices IV & V) Ambridge Bypass National Average (RAGB) Weather Conditions No. of Accidents % No. of Accidents % Fine 8 73% 40173 75% Rain 3 27% 10568 20% Snow 0 0% 338 1% Fog 0 0% 580 1% Unknown 0 0% 1726 3% Total 11 100% 53385 100% Ambridge Bypass National Average (RAGB) Road Surface Conditions No. of Accidents % No. of Accidents % Dry 7 64% 27660 52% Wet 4 36% 23301 44% Snow/Ice 0 0% 1751 3% Unknown 0 0% 673 1% Total 11 100% 53385 100% Ambridge Bypass National Average (RAGB) Light Conditions No. of Accidents % No. of Accidents % Daylight 8 73% 38788 73% Darkness 3 27% 14597 27% Total 11 100% 53385 100% 3.1.8 The above tables indicate that the weather conditions, road surface conditions and lighting conditions recorded in the accident data for the Ambridge bypass are generally consistent with national averages for 2008. Statistical tests carried out for the weather, road surface and lighting condition information indicate that there are no significant differences between the site data recorded in the personal injury accident reports and national data. 3.1.9 Accidents by Manoeuvre Manoeuvre No. of Accidents % Loss of control 2 18% Side impactâfailed to give way 2 18% Nose to tail shunt impact 4 36% Side ImpactâChanging lanes 2 18% Car hit Pedestrian 1 9% Total 11 100% 3.1.10 Further analysis of the accident types indicate that 1 of the nose to tail shunt accidents and 1 of the failure to give way accidents occurred on the A827 dual carriageway approach to the A827/A795 roundabout. In addition, 2 of the nose to tail impacts occurred at the lay-by north of Old Church Lane while a vehicle was waiting to turn right into the facility. Finally, 2 of the 4 accidents that have occurred at the A827 / A795 roundabout have involved cars leaving the roundabout crossing the path of pedal cyclists negotiating the circulatory carriageway.

62 4 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Traffic Flows 4.1.1 Traffic count data has been obtained from an Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) located on the A795 north of Home Farm Lane. The ATC indicates that the traffic flows along the A795 in 2008 were 19,000 vehicles AADT. This compares to the AADT flow recorded in 2006 of 18,500 vehicles. 4.1.2 The daily flow profile suggests that the Ambridge bypass has pronounced peaks in both the AM and PM periods and the traffic volumes are tidal, the high volumes occur in the southbound direction in the AM period and in the northbound direction in the PM period. 4.2 Traffic Speeds 4.2.1 Traffic speeds were measured during January 2009 and the results are shown below: Southbound Northbound Location of Survey 85% ile speed (mph) Speed range (mph) 85% ile speed (mph) Speed range (mph) 100 m South of Old Church Ln 52 41â65 51 41â62 100 m North of Old Church Ln 54 44â66 55 40â66 4.2.2 The results show that speeds along the Ambridge Bypass are typical of those with a 60mph speed limit. A small proportion of drivers exceed the speed limit by more than 5mph. 4.2.3 No significant congestion has been recorded throughout the scheme. However, some queuing has been observed on the A827 westbound approach to the A827 / A795 roundabout during the am peak period. This congestion generally occurs between 08:30 and 09:00 in the morning on weekdays and extends for a length of approximately 15 vehicles in each lane. 5 STATEMENT OF SAFETY PROBLEMS ON THE AMBRIDGE BYPASS 5.1 Problems Identified 5.1.1 Although the accident rate along the Ambridge bypass is consistent with the national average for the type of road, this study has shown that there are a number of specific safety problems along the route: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Two accidents on the A827 dual carriageway approach have involved drivers failing to appreciate the A827/A795 roundabout. Two accidents at the A827/A795 roundabout have involved car drivers exiting the junction across the path of cyclists. A cluster of two accidents have occurred at the lay-by north of Old Church Lane. 5.2 Review of Previous Road Safety Audit Reports and Exception Reports 5.2.1 None of the previous Road Safety Audits raised a specific problem in respect of either the potential for accidents involving drivers approaching from the A827 not appreciating the A827/A795 roundabout or for accidents involving car drivers exiting the junction across the path of cyclists. However, the potential for accidents involving vehicles turning right into the lay-by to the north of Old Church Lane was identified in the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit undertaken in November 2004.

63 5.2.2 The following problem and recommendation was raised in the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit report: PROBLEM Locations: D and E (drawing RSA/S2/001) â Lay-bys north of Old Church Lane. Summary: Lay-by positions provide an increase risk of shunt and right turn accidents. Drivers travelling north will reach the lay-by at location D on their right before the lay-by at location E on their left. Similarly vehicles travelling south will reach the lay-by at E on their right first. Since the lay-bys are not inter-visible and there are no advance signs drivers could be tempted to cross the carriageway to use the first lay-by that they reach. This problem would increase the number of right turning manoeuvres and therefore increase the potential for accidents between right turning vehicles and vehicles travelling ahead in the opposite direction. It could also increase the likelihood of shunt accidents involving vehicles running into the back of other vehicles waiting to turn right into the lay-by. RECOMMENDATION Reposition the lay-bys so that drivers encounter a lay-by on their nearside first. When relocating the lay-bys ensure that adequate visibility is provided for a driver both entering and leaving the facility. In addition, provide advance signing of both facilities. 5.2.3 The recommendation of repositioning the lay-bys was not implemented by the Project Sponsor as it would involve the costly acquisition of third party land and therefore an Exception Report was prepared by the Project Sponsor and approved by the Director. However, in mitigation, the design was amended to include the provision of signing of the lay-bys Â½ mile in advance of each of the facilities. 6 OPTIONS FOR TREATMENT 6.1 Accidents Occurring on the A827 dual carriageway approach to the A827/A795 roundabout 6.1.1 Two of the accidents that have occurred on the A827 westbound approach to the roundabout appear to have involved a driver travelling too fast or not comprehending the junction layout ahead. A remedial measure option to reduce this problem would be to provide Transverse Yellow Bar markings on this approach. This road marking has been shown to have a significant effect in reducing accidents associated with inappropriate approach speeds. 6.1.2 Economic Assessment The cost of providing Transverse Yellow Bar markings is estimated to be Â£4000. A study undertaken by the TRRL(1) has shown that this improvement could result in an overall reduction in speed related accidents in the order of 57% on fast dual carriageway approaches to junctions. However, the TRRL study does identify that the accident saving in relation to accidents occurring during the hours of darkness would be less. Therefore as one of the two accidents on the A827 westbound approach to the junction has been during the hours of darkness an accident saving of 25% has been assumed. Therefore this measure could provide a saving of 0.17 accidents per year, which is equivalent to Â£18,697 based on the national average cost of Â£109,983 for an injury accident (including an allowance for damage only accidents) taken from Highways Economic Note No. 1 (HEN1). 6.1.5 The First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) for this improvement is estimated at 467%. 6.2 Accidents Involving Cyclists at the A827/A795 roundabout 6.2.1 Two of the four accidents that have occurred at this junction have involved car drivers leaving the roundabout across the path of cyclists negotiating the circulatory carriageway. Site observations have indicated that numerous cyclists use the roundabout to access the Westlee Dairy from the residential areas to the west and south. It is therefore recommended that a segregated off-road route is provided around the junction to assist these vulnerable road users. (1) Transport Research and Road Laboratory Report LR 1010 âYellow bar experimental carriageway markings â accident studyâ

64 6.2.2 Economic Assessment The estimated cost of providing a segregated cycle track/footpath around the junction would be Â£60,000. Both the Department for Transport publication âA Road Safety Good Practice Guideâ(2) and the MOLASSES(3) database indicate that cycle schemes have produced a 58% reduction of injury accidents overall. As some cyclists will continue to use the circulatory carriageway it is estimated that this improvement could save 50% of the accidents involving cyclists coming into conflict with motorised vehicles on the carriageway. Therefore this measure could provide a saving of 0.33 accidents per year, which is equivalent to Â£36,294 based on the national average cost of Â£109,983 for an injury accident (including an allowance for damage only accidents) taken from HEN1. 6.2.3 The First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) for this improvement is estimated at 60%. 6.3 Accidents Occurring at the Lay-by 6.3.1 The accident data indicates that there have been 2 accidents involving northbound vehicles waiting to turn into the lay-by north of Old Church Lane. The potential for this type of accident was identified in the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report. As highlighted in Section 5.2 above the Project Sponsor was unable to implement the full recommendations as included in the Audit Report due to problems with land ownership. However the design did include the provision of signing of the lay-bys Â½ mile in advance of each of the facilities. 6.3.2 It is considered that on both approaches to the lay-bys some drivers may mistake the lay-by on the other side of the road as the facility signed at Â½ mile. Therefore it is recommended that a second advance sign is placed on the opposite side of the road to each lay-by informing drivers of the distance to the lay-by on their side of the road. 6.3.3 Economic Assessment: The cost of providing the two extra signs is estimated to be Â£500. It is estimated that this improvement could save 10% of the accidents involving vehicles turning right into the lay-bys. This saving equates to a reduction in 0.07 accidents per year, which in turn is equal to a saving of Â£7,699 based on the national average cost of Â£109,983 for an injury accident (including an allowance for damage only accidents) taken from HEN1. 6.2.4 The First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) for this improvement is estimated at 1539%. 7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1.1 An analysis carried out on the 3-year period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2009 has revealed a total of 11 reported personal injury accidents. 7.1.2 The study has shown that there are a number of specific safety problems on the route and that there are several options for treatment. As all the measures considered give a high First Year Rate of Return it is recommended that all are considered for implementation. (2) A Road Safety Good Practice Guide, First Edition: Department for Transport, June 2001 (3) Monitoring Of Local Authority Safety Schemes, County Surveyorsâ Society & Highways Agency

65 APPENDICES Appendix IâAccident Record 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2009

66 Appendix IIâAccident Plot 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2009

67 Appendix IIIâAccident Frequency by Year, Month & Day of Week

68 Appendix IVâAccident Frequency by Hour of the Day, Weather Conditions & Road Surface Conditions Ambridge Bypass from 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2009

69 Appendix VâAccident by Light Conditions Ambridge Bypass from 01/04/2006 to 31/03/20009

70 RSA TOOL KIT Developed by Eugene M. Wilson, Ph.D., PE, PTOE LOCAL RURAL GOVERNMENT RSAR PROCESS Functional Local Rural Road Classifications RSAR Form Instructions for Local Rural Road Safety Audit Review Program Safety Issues to LOOK FOR Sample Report of RSAR Findings âThe key to safety is implementing improvements for safety issues identified as urgent.â

71 SAMPLE REPORT County Road Safety Audit Reviews Roadways reviewed and the recommendations resulting from the reviews are as follows (specifics on exact locations and more details are provided in the review notes): Local/Rural Major High Speed Road Several items were noted that could be improved if the road was ever reconstructed. However, considering the classifications of the road and the cost of improvements, many items were recommended to leave as they are. Included are parallel drainage pipe blunt ends, trees, power poles, mailbox supports, and some relatively steep side slopes. The following items were thought to be of a relatively low cost improvement that could have positive safety benefits and should be considered for improvement within a reasonably short time frame: Westbound: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Relocate curve sign further upstream Delineate roadside where roadway narrows at horizontal curve and a relatively steep slope exists (2 locations) Replace non-standard speed limit signs Eastbound: Replace curve sign with a curve/intersection warning sign Relocate mailboxes Relocate curve sign further upstream Replace curve warning advisory speed plate to be consistent with opposite direction Add delineation to clearly define edge of roadway cross-section Install a STOP sign The following item was thought to be of such a nature that we recommend the improvement be initiated as soon as possible: Install delineation where roadway alignment is not consistent with the power pole alignment The following items were considered to be of such a nature that they would have relatively high safety benefit if corrected, but are of relatively high cost for this classification of roadway. Therefore, it is recommended that they be considered for improvement if major reconstruction occurs on the roadway at or near these locations. Driveway approach in poor location Westbound view blocked by fence, restricted sight distance Driveway approach grades cause restricted sight distance Local/Rural Local Road Numerous potential safety concerns exist on this roadway. However, due to the classification of the roadway, it is recommended that no improvements be made except to install a STOP sign. Local/Rural Low Volume Local Road Several items were noted that could be improved if the road was ever reconstructed at those specific locations. However, considering the classification of the road and the cost of improvements, many items were recommended to leave as they are. Included are relatively steep slopes and ditches, vertical and horizontal alignment creating sight restrictions, no notification of road ending, and power poles.

72 The following item was thought to be a relatively low cost improvement that could have positive safety benefits and should be considered for improvement within a reasonably short time frame: â¢ Pull ditches and remove large rocks

73 The following four audit reports are examples of how audits will vary with different audit teams. The first two audit reports are for the same facility, but performed by two different audit teams; the last two are for another facility, again performed by two different audit teams. Road Safety Audit Report on the Preliminary Design of the County Road (State Route 51) and Slade Street Intersection Improvements August 27, 2002 Project Description The signalized intersection of Route 51 (County Road) and Slade Street is currently a high crash location with over 50 crashes in the latest three (3) year crash history. In addition, this intersection operates at failing levels of service during peak times of the day. The existing speed limits vary from 35 MPH on Slade Street to 40 MPH on County Road. Adjacent land use in the area is primarily commercial in nature with a residential neighborhood located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. Numerous full movement entrances in the vicinity of the intersection exacerbate the existing over-capacity conditions and contribute to the high crash location status. The alternatives presented include primarily the addition of a travel lane on each of the approaches with reconstruction to provide for the receiving lanes. In addition, raised bituminous islands with sloped granite curbing will be constructed to reduce the existing number of turning movements at adjacent entrances and residential streets. Purpose of Audit Conduct a review of the preliminary design with emphasis on vehicle and intersection safety. Visit the project site and make suggestions to enhance the safety of the intersection Audit Team Members of the audit team are as follows: Division 3 Traffic Engineer; Designer, Urban and Arterial Program; Division 6 Traffic Engineer; Safety Engineer, FHWA; and Resident Inspector, Regional Program, Division 7. Data and Information Used We reviewed the following data and information during the conduct of this audit. â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Preliminary plan Typical sections Profiles Crash data State Access Management Rules Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) State Highway Design Guide

74 General Findings â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ The existing intersections operate at low levels of service with turning movements into/out of the driveways/entrances/streets in the immediate vicinity. Vehicles use shoulders inappropriately. Existing insufficient truck turning radii. SPECIFIC FINDINGS County Road Westbound Approach Receiving lanes on the east leg of the intersection appear to be short prior to the lane drop. The concern is that the contributing westbound through or southbound dual left turn lanes will not be fully utilized. Extend the two eastbound receiving lanes to station 1+420 before starting lane drop. Ideally, the two-lane section should be extended to the intersection of County Road and the Exit 7A connector road. The westbound approach right and through lanes need to be extended to Station 1+420. The lane transition length appears to be the same as the lane drop transition; this should be one half the lane drop distance. Consider a frontage road to connect Cottonwood Street with Elm Street. This configuration will reduce the number accesses onto County Road. County Road Eastbound Approach The proposed median opening on Route 51 at Station 1+100 to 1+120 should be closed and the access to the CMP substation be restricted to right in and right out only. Slade Street Northbound Approach Narrow the proposed median opening on Slade Street at approximately Station 5+320 Lt to 5+340 Lt to allow passenger cars only. The shared entrance narrowed to 30-foot wide and signed to prohibit truck traffic and direct them to Lance Drive. Intersection Signal The phasing of the intersection indicates the southbound (SB) dual left turns will operate concurrently with the northbound (NB) left-turn lane. There does not appear to be sufficient room within the intersection for this to occur. Speed Limit The speed zones on County Road and Slade Street should be reviewed. A speed reduction may reduce the number of crashes Conclusions In our judgment, consideration of the findings should improve the overall safety of the signalized intersection of Route 51 (County Road) and Slade Street in Layton. We also suggest that a subsequent road safety audit take place after final design plans have been completed. Although we still have concerns with the Elm Street and County Road intersection, there does not seem to be a feasible solution that would not significantly alter the scope of the project while allowing for safe and efficient traffic flow at this location. Respectfully submitted, Team Leader

75 Road Safety Audit Report on the Preliminary Design of the Intersection Improvement at Route 51 and Slade Street in the Town of Layton Project Description The Route 51 and Slade Street intersection is a suburban intersection surrounded by commercial and residential land use. The intersection is in a major commuter route from the surrounding communities to the Turnpike/Interstate as well as the mall area. It is believed that capacity issues are the driving forces behind this improvement. The existing intersection is classified a high crash location by the state Department of Transportation, with 50 accidents in the years 1999â2001. We have reviewed the preliminary plan, which includes widening of the intersection to separate turning movements and provide dedicated left-turn lanes as well as additional thru lanes at the intersection. Audit Team Members The following members comprise the audit team: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Division 2 Traffic Engineer Division Engineer, Division 4 Division 7 Traffic Engineer DOT Traffic Division 7 Regional Program Assistant Engineer, Division 6 Data and Documentation We have reviewed the following data and documentation during the conduct of this audit: Preliminary Plan titled Layton, Project No. 1452, Produced by Smith Consulting Engineers, Dated PDR August 9, 2002. Crash data produced by state DOT. Assumptions We have based our audit on the following assumptions: The existing highway is built to design standards at the time of construction. The plans for the proposed intersection improvements are according to current design standards. Utilities will be moved outside of the clear zone. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic has been considered. Turning movements and capacity issues have been considered. All traffic signals and signage will be according to the MUTCD. Site Visit We visited the site on August 29, 2002, from approximately 8 AM to 10 AM to review field conditions and traffic flows. The weather at the time of the visit was partly cloudy. The intersection was viewed from all quadrants during the site visit. The existing intersection is located in a mix of residential and commercial land uses. There are a few entrances located within the project limits, which should be considered for access management. Pedestrian and bicycle use was non-existent during our visit. Drainage did not appear to be an issue at this time, but storage for winter snow appeared to be limited due to the narrow shoulders in the intersection.

76 Findings The group identified the following issues as potential safety problems: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ The left turns on both legs of Slade Street are allowed to run at the same time, under the proposed signal phasing. There does not appear to be enough room in the intersection for these movements to be made at the same time without conflict. Increasing the space in the intersection for these opposing left-turning movements is one possible solution. The other solution would be to not allow the left turns to run concurrently. Left-turning trucks from County Road onto Slade Street need additional room to make the turn due to the acute angle involved. This occurs on both legs of the County Road. Additional room should be given for these truck movements. Access management should be strongly considered around Wrenâs Auto Repair and the local side streets (Cottonwood and Elm Streets). We feel that consideration should be given to combining Cottonwood and Elm Streets at Elm Street and eliminating the present Cottonwood Street entrance onto Route 51. The connection should be located as far from Route 51 as possible to provide the maximum comer clearance. The Wrenâs Auto Repair lot should only have access off from Cottonwood Street. We also feel that the little house behind Wrenâs Auto Repair on Slade Street should be purchased so that the present entrance can be eliminated. Is the proposed left-turn pocket long enough for expected traffic? We feel that a refuge may be appropriate for left- turning vehicles into and out of Elm Street. Left-turning traffic would only have to cross half of the roadway at a time if a refuge was provided. No lighting was shown on the plans. We recommend that additional overhead lighting should be installed at the intersection. There are numerous trees around the intersection that inhibit sight distance. These trees should be removed and any new plantings should be small enough or located such that sight distance is not impaired. The No Parking ordinance should be maintained in the area around the intersection after construction. All utilities should be moved outside of the clear zone. The island on Slade Street at Station 5+200 does not appear to be wide enough on the plans. This island needs to be wide enough to accommodate keep right signs. The tapers entering into the intersections do not appear to be long enough for the proposed transition zones. These transition zones should be lengthened to meet existing standards. The group feels that the entrance at 5+330 right on Slade Street should be moved across from the drive at 5+370 left. This would eliminate some turning conflicts at the two locations. It would also eliminate the median cut at this location. Conclusions In our judgment, considerations of the findings should improve the overall safety of the intersection improvement at the intersection of Route 51 and Slade Street in Layton. We also feel that a subsequent Road Safety Audit should be conducted later on in the design phase to provide additional feedback on any design changes that are made.

77 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT for the design of the Route 197 Project in Stanford August 29, 2002 Project Description The proposed project is on State Route 197 from the intersection of Castle Road to the state DOT compact urban line, approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection heading toward Douglas. The project also involves several intersections beyond Castle Road. This includes Maple Drive, Hill Road, and Stanford Road/Clay Drive (a 4-way signalized intersection). This particular area has experienced residential/commercial growth and will continue to experience more growth in the future. From the increase in traffic volume, geometries have become a concern for safety. This road has a variety of vertical curve elements that need addressing. In combination with the geometries, driver inattention has contributed to the largest population of crashes for the current speeds in this corridor. To address some of the crashes and pedestrian uses, 12-foot lanes are being proposed with 6-foot shoulders. In conjunction with these modifications, sidewalks with an esplanade are being implemented to accommodate the expanding bedroom community here. Purpose of Audit The purpose of the audit is to review preliminary plans for safety issues. A field review was also conducted. The field review and plan review will be combined for recommendations and proposed changes to plans and/or specifications for the purpose of improving safety on this project. Audit Team Members of the Audit Team are as follows: Safety and Traffic Engineer, FHWA; Designer, Urban and Arterial Program; Major Project Studies, Bureau of Planning; Traffic Engineer, Bureau of Planning; Assistant Engineer, Bureau of Planning; Resident Inspector, Regional Program, Division 7; and Project Administrator, Urban and Arterial Program. Data and Information Used We reviewed, or used information from, the following sources while conducting this audit: Preliminary plan Crash data Cover letter from Designer that included additional project information State Access Management Rules Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) State Highway Design Guide General Findings There are currently inadequate shoulders throughout the length of this project. The lack of shoulders appears to contribute to many of the crashes along this section. Sight distance is a problem throughout this project. Unimproved horizontal and vertical alignment in conjunction with the numerous residential and light commercial properties creates safety concerns throughout the length of the project. The intersection just before the southern project terminus (Castle Road Intersection) is a relatively high-volume intersection that is likely to see significant increases in volume due to development of adjacent property for high-use

78 commercial purposes. This intersection also has a fairly high accident cluster over the past 3 years. As such, this intersection was included in our review. The project also includes another signalized four-way intersection at Stanford Road. This intersection involves many traffic movements and will require realignment, increased turning radii, and construction of exclusive left-turn lanes in all directions. Specific Findings Review stopping and intersection sight distances throughout the project. For example, the Credit Union area between 0+420 to 0+580 and all other intersections. School bus was observed making a wide turn onto Maple Street. Please review all turning radii at intersections. Crash data indicate a problem in the Credit Union area. Consider adding turning lanes if warranted. Consider adding a protected left-turn phase at both intersections if warranted. Consider exclusive left-turn lanes at Castle Road if warranted, while R/W is more readily available. Consider pedestrian signals at all signalized intersections. Improve âlanding areaâ at Hill Street as much as possible. Verify guardrail length of need and all end treatments throughout project. Use guardrail along sidewalk even if outside designated clear zone (as opposed to chain-link fence), because of the severe slopes. Coordinate design effort with Bridge Design to ensure adequate treatment of structure at north terminus of project. Eradicate poison ivy before construction. The proposed design will severely impact homes in the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection at Stanford Road/Clay Drive; consider realigning the intersection (Clay Drive) southerly (20 m) to improve traffic operations. By taking one property this will eliminate sever impacts to both residences. Conclusions The Review Team strongly recommends consideration of all recommendations in this report. This is an unimproved roadway that has high traffic volumes and currently connects two improved sections of roadway that appear to meet all current standards. The proposed design will significantly improve safety in the vicinity with the construction of the 12-foot travel lanes along with 6-ft shoulders. The inclusion of a 5 ft sidewalk from Castle Road to Stanford Road on the west side of the roadway (including a 4 ft esplanade) and a 5 ft sidewalk on the east side between Hill Road and Stanford Road will also significantly increase safety along this stretch of roadway. To further improve safety in this area, we have made several recommendations that relate to further improving the sight distance along the project. In addition, we recommend that a complete guardrail review be completed to ensure that adequate protection is provided in areas where the slopes are not traversable and hazards are present. Other recommendations relate specifically to the intersections at Castle Road and Stanford Road.

79 State Department of Transportation Road Safety Audit Route 197 Stanford Preliminary Plan Review Tuesday, August 27, 2002 Project Description Route 197 is currently a two-lane rural/suburban minor arterial highway extending one mile north of the intersection with the Castle Road. The existing speed limit on Route 197 is 35 miles per hour. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial. Intersections along the corridor include: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Castle Road/Route 197 Maple Street/Route 197 Hill Street/Route 197 Stanford and Clay Road/Route 197 There are numerous driveway accesses and wide driveways on this section. We have reviewed a preliminary proposal to use a two-lane curb and gutter section with additional left- and right-turn lanes at intersections. The proposed typical section is assumed to include 5-foot sidewalks on the east and west side of the road north of the Clay and Stanford Roads, with a 4-foot grass esplanade separating the shoulder and sidewalk on the west side. Audit Team Members The following members comprise the audit team: Division 1 Traffic Engineer Division 2 Traffic Engineer Assistant Project Manager Transportation Analysis FHWA Urban and Arterial Designer Data and Documentation We have reviewed the following data and documentation while conducting this audit: Preliminary alignment plans and profile entitled Improvements to Route 197 Stanford by Smith Engineering. Crash data for 1999â2001 produced by state DOT for this section of road. Letter re: Route 197 Stanford, Plans for Safety Training Course. Needs The following data will be needed to adequately address safety: Design AADTs, including truck counts; Present timing and phase layout of existing signals; Turning movements at intersections; Design speed; Typical cross sections; Maintenance concerns could possibly be addressed by including a maintenance person on the Road Safety Audit teams; and

80 â¢ Law enforcement input should be encouraged. Assumptions We have based our audit on the following assumptions: â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ The plans for the proposed section are according to current design standards. Some entrances and driveways on Route 197 will be eliminated. Intersections presently signalized will remain signalized. Curbing will be used at the sidewalks and esplanade. Utilities will be moved outside the clear zone or underground. Pedestrian and bike traffic have been considered. Parking will be regulated. Center lanes are typically left-turn lanes and far right lanes are right-turn lanes when shown on the plan. Site Visit We visited the site on August 27, 2002, from approximately 1:30 PM to 4 PM to evaluate the proposed plans in relation to present use of the current roadway. The weather was mostly sunny. The existing roadway appears to have drainage deficiencies with excessive rutting along sections with the greater grades. This area is a mix of commercial and residential uses. This area transitions from rural to recently completed urban development. Trucks were observed to account for a significant portion of the traffic volume. Pedestrians and bicyclists are assumed to be significant here as well, although very little was observed during our review. The 85th percentile speeds appeared to be between 40 and 45 miles per hour. We walked the entire proposed project while reviewing the proposed plans. We then compared and contrasted our observations with those we anticipated before compiling this report. We were not able to visit the site after dark or under differing weather conditions, which may reveal additional safety needs beyond those outlined below. Safety needs determined because of these different conditions should be considered in the design of this project and may normally require additional visits to the sites during road safety audits. Findings Our findings and observations are identified below. These findings are the consensus of the team. Overall Concerns Queue lengths of proposed left-turn and right-turn lanes should be designed to be adequate for design AADTs and turning movements. Sidewalk south of this project near Red Creek is on the east side of Route 197. Sidewalk should be extended from this project to that area. Presently, no sidewalk is shown on the east side of the proposed plan from Hill Street south. Schools are on the east side of this route. These factors should be considered in determining whether the sidewalk should be on the east, west, or both sides throughout and along the project. All utilities should be moved outside the proposed clear zone. Numerous utility poles and fire hydrants were observed inside the proposed clear zone. Sight distance concerns were observed at numerous accesses and intersections near the vertical curve crests. The speed limit sign at 0+240Â± right is a 35 mile per hour sign, not 25 miles per hour as shown on the plan. Slope stability needs to be considered at a number of locations including: 0+240Â± right 1+540Â± right 0+740Â± left. Guardrail end treatments should reflect current standards. Proposed locations of guardrails should be considered when evaluating sight distances. Remember to consider the location of the guardrail in relation to the proposed edge of shoulder as it will be built.

81 â¢ Numerous drainage deficiencies were observed and need to be addressed. â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ â¢ Excessive rutting was observed at numerous locations including: 0+700 southbound lane 0+890 southbound lane. Left-turn tracking was observed beyond the existing pavement at a number of locations including: 0+450 1+740 â1+780 1+400 commercial establishments, in general. Entrances should be offset directly across from each other as much as possible. Phases and timing of signals should be re-evaluated in relation to lane and shoulder modifications (including sidewalk and crosswalk needs). Specific Concerns The existing entrance at 0+120 should be considered for elimination, since it appears this parcel may be able to enter on to the Leighton Road, with lower expected volumes and level of service needs. Sight distance at 0+200, right, access may not meet design speed criteria. Maple Street should be re-oriented at the intersection with Route 197 to intersect at a 90Âº angle. The entrance at 0+280 left should be considered for modification to allow entrance on to Maple Street or more significantly entering on to Route 197 at a right angle. Sight distance at 0+380, left, access may not meet design speed criteria and should be considered for elimination. Excavation of the bank to the north needs to be evaluated in relation to sight distance needs at this entrance if it is not eliminated. The entrance at 0+450Â± right should be considered for placement opposite the entrance at 0+430Â± left. The entrance at 0+500Â± right should be considered for placement opposite the entrance at 0+480Â± left or being shared with the Credit Union entrance. Sight distance at 0+570, left, access may not meet design speed criteria and modifications to vertical profile of the road or movement of the entrance location should be considered to meet the criteria. Entrances at 0+620 and 0+640 left appear to have tracked in to each other and will need some means of positive separation to maintain access management in the future. Sight distance at 0+620, right, access may not meet design speed criteria. Excavation of the bank to the north and/or movement of the entrance needs to be evaluated in relation to sight distance needs here. Evidence of spinning tires was observed at a number of entrances including 0+780Â±right. Level landings of these entrances at the road should be provided. Sight distance at 0+780, right, access may not meet design speed criteria. Sight distance at 0+850, right, access may not meet design speed criteria. Excavation of the bank to the north and/or movement of the entrance needs to be evaluated in relation to sight distance needs here. Sight distance at 0+920, right, access may not meet design speed criteria. Excavation of the bank to the south and/or vegetation interferences need to be evaluated in relation to sight distance needs here. Sight distance at 0+930, left, access may not meet design speed criteria and modifications to vertical profile of the road and/or elimination of vegetation interferences should be considered to meet the criteria. Hill Street is presently closed. The grade on the approach and the width of the opening is excessive and a utility pole, creating the need for an island in the middle of the opening, is undesirable. Sight distances may not meet design speed criteria. Keeping the road closed should be considered. If not kept closed, the grade should be reduced and approach profile raised, width of the opening reduced, and the island and utility pole eliminated at the present approach. The entrance at 1+140 right should be considered for elimination. Drives and parking from1+140 to 1+200 left should be designed to eliminate vehicles backing in to the roadway. The angle of intersection at the Stanford Road and Route 197 intersection creates vehicle tracking and sight distance problems. The stop line is presently located a considerable distance back from the intersection. Modification of this approach should be considered to eliminate these problems. The most significant tracking problem was observed for vehicles turning left off the Stanford Road on to Route 197. Sight distance at 1+330, left, access may not meet design speed criteria and elimination of such should be considered.

82 â¢ â¢ â¢ Sight distance at 1+360, left, access may not meet design speed criteria. Excavation of the bank to the north and/or movement of the entrance needs to be evaluated in relation to sight distance needs here. A level landing of the entrance should be provided at the road. Parking needs at 1+410 right exceeded parking available off the road. Three cars were parked along the shoulder of the road when we passed by. This will create traffic flow problems along the project if parking is allowed along the shoulders. Entrance at 1+610 right allows for vehicles to enter road at excessive speeds. This should be configured to constrict their entrance to be more perpendicular to the road. Conclusions In our judgment, consideration of the findings should improve the overall safety of the Route 197 corridor in Stanford. We also suggest that a subsequent road safety audit take place after the preliminary plans have been completed. Signed by: Division 1 Traffic Engineer Division 2 Traffic Engineer Assistant Project Manager Transportation Analysis FHWA Urban and Arterial Designer

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001