SH1N Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements - Whangarei · 4 Johnson Street Onerahi Whangarei Phone 09 436 1498 Fax 09 436 1497. 2/12/2015 SH1 Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements

SH1N Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements

Safety Audit

Interim Design Stage

April 2015

4 Johnson Street Onerahi

Whangarei Phone 09 436 1498

Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015

SH1 Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements Interim

Design RSA Final June 2015

- 2 -

This document has been prepared for the benefit of the NZ Transport Agency. No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person. This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement.

Engineering Equilibrium Limited Mike Sullivan, CPEng, MIPENZ, BE (Civil) (Hons) 4 Johnson Street Onerahi Whangarei 0110 Phone 09 436 1498 Fax 09 436 1497 E-mail: [email protected]

© Engineering Equilibrium Limited This document is and shall remain the property of Engineering Equilibrium Limited. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Rev No. Author

Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Name Signature Date

A Mike Sullivan

Rae Sullivan

22/04/2015 Mike Sullivan

15/05/2015

B

C

D

E

F



Fax 09 436 1497

Contents 1. Introductory Statement ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Audit team ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Previous audit ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Audit methodology ......................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Project documentation .................................................................................................... 3

1.6 Briefing meetings ........................................................................................................... 3

1.7 Audit and site visit .......................................................................................................... 4

1.8 Ranking system .............................................................................................................. 4

1.9 Decision tracking form ................................................................................................... 5

1.10 Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................... 5

2. Safety audit findings and recommendations ................................................................................. 7

2.1 Right turns from Tarewa Road ....................................................................................... 7

2.2 Tarewa Road merge ....................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Access to #87 Tarewa Road and #45 Otaika Road (SH1N) .......................................... 9

2.4 Accesses to #47 to #53 Otaika Road (SH1N) .............................................................. 10

2.5 Merge and accesses to #67 to #85 Otaika Road (SH1N) ............................................. 11

2.6 Lane and flush median widths ...................................................................................... 15

2.7 Footpath widths ............................................................................................................ 16

2.8 Cyclist provision .......................................................................................................... 17

2.9 Kerb profile .................................................................................................................. 19

2.10 Inter-visibility at driveways and footpaths ................................................................... 20

2.11 Pedestrian facilities ...................................................................................................... 23

2.12 Signage details .............................................................................................................. 26

2.13 Lighting ........................................................................................................................ 27

2.14 Drainage ....................................................................................................................... 27

2.15 Access to i-centre ......................................................................................................... 28

2.16 Power boxes ................................................................................................................. 29

2.17 Culvert at Chn 100 ....................................................................................................... 30

2.18 Raumanga Stream Bridge barrier ................................................................................. 31

2.19 Landscaping ................................................................................................................. 35

2.20 Traffic Signal Advance Loops ..................................................................................... 36



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 2 -

2.21 Masking of pedestrians at crossing and access to traffic signal controller .................. 36

2.22 Traffic signal aspects .................................................................................................... 37

3. Audit Statement .......................................................................................................................... 41



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 1 -

1. Introductory Statement

1.1 Introduction

This report presents the findings of an interim design stage safety audit for the SH1N/Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements in Whangarei. The work forms part of a wider route improvement to continue a four lane urban State Highway through Whangarei between Selwyn Avenue and Tarewa Road. A uniform road layout is being planned over the wider route to provide continuity and smoother travel for drivers. The project is 670 m long and begins at RP 266/0.08 and ends at RP 266/0.75. The project includes the provision of four lanes (two in each direction), a flush median and the modification and signalisation of the SH1N/Tarewa Intersection. Right turns from Tarewa Road will be closed as part of the project. This work is being carried out as a NZ Transport Agency project.

SH1N is the main arterial north/south route through urban Whangarei and is a Regional Strategic Highway under the State Highway Classification System. The highway connects the Auckland region with Northland.

Traffic volumes using SH1N are 23,641 AADT (2013), at count station ID:01N00265, 100m south of the Tarewa Road intersection.

GHD are preparing the detailed design drawings of the proposed improvements. The primary purpose of the project is to provide capacity improvements along the SH1N route and to improve pedestrian and cycle linkages. Secondary objectives are to reduce the current crash rate and to provide safe solutions for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists and other non-motorised users. NZTA have requested an interim design stage safety audit to inform the consent design to ensure that NZTA captures the appropriate footprint and design requirements. NZTA have asked that the audit should focus on a safe system approach along with a non-motorised user audit to ensure that they have a design in an urban environment that safely provides for all modes. As an interim design audit, not all aspects of the design were completed. Therefore, this audit does not cover all aspects that would be included in a detailed design stage safety audit.

1.2 Audit team

The audit team comprised of: Mike Sullivan CPEng, BE (Civil), MIPENZ

Director Engineering Equilibrium Limited, Whangarei.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 2 -

Dave Spoonley BEng, CEng, CIHT, MICE Senior Roading and Safety Engineer Opus International Consultants, Whangarei Jeff Greenough BEng Central Engineer, Traffic Signals and Intelligent Transport Systems

NZ Transport Agency, Wellington

1.3 Previous audit

A scheme/preliminary design stage safety audit for the project was carried out in May 2009. Mike Sullivan and Jeff Greenough were members of that audit team and have been involved in the safety audits for the wider SH1N route improvements. The auditors were also involved in the post construction safety audit for the SH1N/SH14/Maunu Road intersection section in July 2014 and the SH1N/Selwyn Road intersection in January 2015. The issues raised and the design approach for these other sections of the wider project route has been considered in context with this project.

1.4 Audit methodology

This audit has been carried out for Jacque Bell, Project Manager/NZTA Urban Design Champion, NZ Transport Agency. The audit follows the guidelines contained within the NZ Transport Agency document “Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects, Guidelines, Interim Release, May 2013” and is complemented by the auditors experience with other audits. This audit should not be regarded as a complete “quality check” of the project. It focuses essentially on safety issues that are considered significant in regard to the proposed design. The auditors have identified road safety concerns and have made recommendations about corrective actions. Whilst these recommendations may indicate the nature or direction of a solution, they do not provide specific details of how to address or resolve that concern. Responsibility for the solution of any safety issue identified in this audit remains with the designer.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 3 -

1.5 Project documentation

GHD provided the drawings listed in Figure 1 for the audit. A copy of the Design Philosophy Statement (November 2014) was also provided.

Figure 1: List of drawings provided for the audit.

1.6 Briefing meetings

A briefing meeting for the audit was held with the NZTA Project Manager on 1 April 2015. The audit team were asked to consider the following items:

Review the previous scheme stage assumptions regarding non-motorised users; Determine whether any safety issues impact on the proposed design and designation

footprint; Establish whether all pedestrian and cyclist desire lines have been provided for; Assess any impacts on safety south of the tie-in near the I-Centre and Raumanga Valley

Road; and Establish whether there are adequate provisions for U-turns for drivers accessing

properties that will have left turn only access. An audit de-brief is to be provided with the delivery of this report.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 4 -

1.7 Audit and site visit

The auditors carried out the audit on the 15th April 2015. The auditors reviewed the safety aspects of the proposed works on site during the day. The weather was fine during the site visit.

1.8 Ranking system

The potential road safety problems identified have been ranked using the example contained within the NZ Transport Agency document “Road Safety Audit Procedures for Projects, Guidelines, Interim Release, May 2013”. The expected crash frequency is qualitatively assessed on the basis of expected exposure (how many road users will be exposed to a safety issue) and the likelihood of a crash resulting from the presence of the issue. The severity of a crash outcome is qualitatively assessed on the basis of factors such as expected speeds, type of collision, and type of vehicle involved. Reference to historic crash rates or other research for similar elements of projects, or projects as a whole; have been drawn on where appropriate to assist in understanding the likely crash types, frequency and likely severity that may result from a particular concern. The frequency and severity ratings are used together to develop a combined qualitative ranking for each safety issue using the Concern Assessment Rating Matrix in Table 1 below. The qualitative assessment requires professional judgement and a wide range of experience in projects of all sizes and locations.

Table 1: Assessment Matrix

Likelihood of Fatality or Serious

Injury

Probability of a Crash Occurring

Frequent Common Occasional Infrequent

Very Likely Serious Serious Significant Moderate

Likely Serious Significant Moderate Moderate

Unlikely Significant Moderate Minor Minor

Very Unlikely Moderate Minor Minor Minor

While all safety concerns should be considered for action, the client or nominated project manager will make the decision as to what course of action will be adopted, based on the guidance given in this ranking process with consideration to factors other than safety alone. As a guide, a suggested action for each concern category is given in Table 2 below.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 5 -

Table 2: Categories of Concern

CONCERN Suggested Action

Serious Serious concern that must be addressed and requires changes to avoid serious safety consequences.

Significant Significant concern that should be addressed and requires changes to avoid serious safety consequences.

Moderate Moderate concern that should be addressed to improve safety.

Minor Minor concern that should be addressed where practical to improve safety.

In addition to the ranked safety issues it is appropriate for the safety audit team to provide additional comments with respect to items that may have a safety implication but lie outside the scope of the safety audit. A comment may include items where the safety implications are not yet clear due to insufficient detail for the stage of project, items outside the scope of the audit such as existing issues not impacted by the project or an opportunity for improved safety but not necessarily linked to the project itself. While typically comments do not require a specific recommendation, in some instances the auditors may give suggestions. 1.9 Decision tracking form

Decision tracking is an important part of the road safety audit process. A decision-tracking table is embedded into the report format at the end of each set of recommendations to be completed by the designer, safety engineer and client for each issue documenting the designer response, client decision (and asset manager’s comments in the case where the client and asset manager are not one and the same) and action taken. A copy of the report including the designer’s response to the client and the client’s decision on each recommendation shall be given to the road safety audit team leader as part of the important feedback loop. The road safety audit team leader will disseminate this to team members.

1.10 Disclaimer

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on an examination of available relevant plans, the specified road and its environs, and the opinions of the SAT. However, it must be recognised that eliminating safety concerns cannot be guaranteed since no road can be regarded as absolutely safe and no warranty is implied that all safety issues have been identified in this report. Safety audits do not constitute a design review nor an assessment of standards with respect to engineering or planning documents. Readers are urged to seek specific technical advice on matters raised and not rely solely on the report.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 6 -

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the report, it is made available on the basis that anyone relying on it does so at their own risk without any liability to the safety audit team or their organisations.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 7 -

2. Safety audit findings and recommendations

2.1 Right turns from Tarewa Road

The proposed design closes right turns from Tarewa Road. The auditor’s consider this approach to be reasonable as it simplifies the intersection, improving efficiency and safety. It is important, however, that the design prevents illegal right turns and that there are adequate provisions for alternative routes for drivers to use to reach their destination. The position of the central island on the southern leg of SH1N is too far back from the intersection to physically prevent right turns from Tarewa Road (refer to Figure 2). Vehicles making illegal turns will conflict with through and turning vehicles and pedestrians using the pedestrian signal phases. Pedestrians will be particularly vulnerable to a serious or fatal injury if hit by a turning vehicle. The auditors have not reviewed the vehicle tracking paths for the right turn from SH1N into Tarewa Road, but consider that the central island should be located as far forward as possible to physically prevent the right turn movement from Tarewa Road. This may necessitate providing for the design vehicle (an 18 m six axle semi-trailer) in the nearside right turn lane only, with the offside right turn lane designed and marked for light vehicles only.

Figure 2: The position of the central island on the southern leg of SH1N is too far back from the intersection to physically prevent right turns from Tarewa Road.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 8 -

The auditor’s also noted that the design does not detail changes to the existing directional signage to indicate the no right turn from Tarewa Road. The advance direction sign (ADS) on Tarewa Road and the intersection direction sign (IDS) on SH1N facing Tarewa Road need to be modified to either remove the northbound destination and/or indicate the no-right turn. Recommendations

a) Physically prevent right turn vehicle movements from Tarewa Road to SH1N by moving the central island on the southern leg of SH1N further forward.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Noted. A review of vehicle tracking identified that the central island would need to be extended by 15.5m to physically prevent right turn movements out of Tarewa Rd. This length however severely impacts on vehicle tracking into Tarewa Rd. The central island could be extended by 5m without impacting on tracking paths for semi-trailers turning right into Tarewa Rd from the inside lane. The central island could be extended by approximately 13m to discourage right turn movements out of Tarewa Rd. This would however limit the design vehicle using the inside right turn lane to cars only. Client to confirm if approval is given to extend the central island by 13m. Safety Engineer: NZTA concurs with the SAT. Tracking for T&T is a minimum requirement. Central island to be extended 5m. Designer to provide PSE with tracking diagram. The problem appears to be a function of the narrow central median Client Decision: Action Taken: Semi-Trailer vehicle sweep paths provided and design updated to extend central island by 5m.

b) Modify the existing directional signage to reflect the no-right turn from Tarewa Road.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Noted. Signage modifications to be included in updated signage plans. Safety Engineer: Client Decision: NZTA accepts designer response (ADR) Action Taken: Signage plans updated to no-right turn requirement from Tarewa Rd.

2.2 Tarewa Road merge

A left-to-right merge is detailed on Tarewa Road (refer to Figure 3). Left-to-right merges are an unusual treatment in urban areas. Merge layouts should be consistent with other treatments locally and nationally. Consistent treatments are beneficial in encouraging safe driver behaviour and avoiding confusion. The auditors prefer the use of zip merges in a 50km/h urban environment as they encourage drivers to “merge like a zip” with equal priority and better behaviour, and are self-explaining. Recommendation



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 9 -

Provide a zip merge on Tarewa Road.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Layout to be updated to provide a zip merge. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Layout updated to show a zip merge.

Figure 3: The left-to-right merge on Tarewa Road.

2.3 Access to #87 Tarewa Road and #45 Otaika Road (SH1N)

A shared access for #87 Tarewa Road and #45 Otaika Road (SH1N) is proposed at Chn 43 RHS Tarewa Road (refer to Figure 4). Drivers approaching from SH1N may be tempted to make a U-turn at the start of the central island to use this access. U-turning vehicles will be at risk of being hit by vehicles exiting SH1N. This is particularly likely for vehicles turning left from



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 10 -

SH1N who will be looking right to give-way to vehicles and may not see a vehicle making a U-turn. The central island should be located as far forward as possible to discourage U-turns to this access. The auditors consider that it is reasonable to provide for right turns from #85 Tarewa Road eastwards.

Figure 4: The proposed access for #87 Tarewa Road and #45 Otaika Road. Recommendation Locate the central island on Tarewa Road as far forward as possible to discourage U-turns to #87 Tarewa Road and #45 Otaika Road. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Disagree. We believe extending the central island further east up Tarewa Rd will make it unsafe for vehicles to turn into #85 Tarewa by preventing them from stopping on the painted central median. They would instead have to stop in the eastbound traffic lane, leading to a higher chance of rear end collisions. Motorists inclined to undertake U-turns would still do this, simply because the road is a similar width at both locations. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: No Changes made to layout.

2.4 Accesses to #47 to #53 Otaika Road (SH1N)

The accesses to #47 to #53 Otaika Road (SH1N) will be left turn only and provide access to 8 properties (refer to Figure 5). The auditors concur with this approach. Vehicles turning left into these accesses will be at risk of rear-end type crashes from vehicles exiting the intersection, as drivers may not be expecting to slow for a left turning vehicle. The



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 11 -

provision of a 1.5 m wide shoulder is not sufficient to separate turning and through traffic. Increasing the shoulder width to 2.5 m at this location would separate these movements and reduce the risk of a rear-end type crash.

Figure 5: The proposed accesses for #47 - #53 Otaika Road (SH1N). Recommendation Increase the shoulder width to 2.5 m for left turns into #47 to #53 Otaika Road (SH1N). Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Widening the shoulder, as well as widening the footpath (as recommended in Item 2.7) and shifting it away from roadway (as recommended in Item 2.11 Fig. 15) will result in less berm area, steeper vehicle crossings, greater retaining structures, additional physical works costs and the need for further land at #53A and #55 SH1N. For these reasons it’s not supported. Safety Engineer: After consultation with the designer it was agreed to splay the entranceways Client Decision: Retain existing shoulder design and splay driveway Action Taken: No changes made to shoulder. Drawings updated to show splayed entranceways.

2.5 Merge and accesses to #67 to #85 Otaika Road (SH1N)

A left-to-right merge is detailed on SH1N southbound (refer to Figure 6). Left-to-right merges are an unusual treatment in urban areas. Merge layouts should be consistent with other treatments locally and nationally. Consistent treatments are beneficial in encouraging safe driver behaviour and avoiding confusion. The auditors prefer the use of zip merges in a 50km/h urban environment as they encourage drivers to “merge like a zip” with equal priority and better behaviour, and are self-explaining.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 12 -

The accesses to #67 to #85 Otaika Road (SH1N) are located within the merge from two lanes to one lane at the end of a 3 km long two-lane route treatment that will commence at Manse Street (on completion of the Fourth Avenue and Tarewa Road sections). All of the accesses, except #67, enable right turn movements (refer to Figure 7). Right turn movements at these accesses conflict with merging movements and increase the risk of turning and merging type crashes. There is an opportunity to rationalise these accesses to reduce the number of conflict points with the use of a service lane within the wide road reserve accessed at around Chn 620 LHS, between # 81 and #83/85 Otaika Road. An alternative at Chn 540 LHS (#67 Otaika Road) may also be feasible, possibly as a one-way treatment (southbound). The location of the merge on the outside of a moderate right hand curve could encourage drivers to “cut the corner” into the flush median where they could conflict with turning vehicles and pedestrians using the crossing point at the southern tie-in at Chn 680 (refer to Figure 8). Pedestrians crossing at this location will be at particular risk of high severity injury if hit by a vehicle travelling at the speed limit, with a fatality risk above 50%. Extending the raised central median from Chn 560 to around 640 would restrict movements to left-turn only and address the merge versus right turn conflicts, and prevent vehicles “cutting the corner” into the flush median. It would also provide side friction that would encourage lower speeds through the merge and approaching the pedestrian crossing point. Figure 9 is an indicative sketch of a possible alternative layout for the merge treatment, access locations and central island location.

Figure 6: The left-to-right merge on SH1N southbound.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 13 -

Figure 7: The proposed accesses for #47 - #85 Otaika Road (SH1N).

Figure 8: The pedestrian crossing point at the southern tie-in (Chn 680).



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 14 -

Figure 9: A possible alternative layout for the merge treatment, access locations and central island location at the southern merge on SH1N. Recommendations

a) Provide a zip merge on SH1N southbound.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Layout will be updated to provide a zip merge. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR with merge sign. Action Taken: Layout updated to show a zip merge.

b) Rationalise the accesses to #67 to #85 Otaika Road (SH1N) to a single service lane.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: The merging of all accesses into a single crossing point would require significant changes to the berm including the need for new retaining structures outside #81 Otaika Rd. New fences would also be required to physically prevent access across the berm. There is also the risk of visitors not being aware of the service lane, and then undertaking U turn manoeuvres in order to get back to the service lane entrance. It is possible to rationalise accesses for #69, #71, #75 and #77 into a single crossing. This has been informally discussed with the landowner of #69, #71 & #77. The design can be modified to a single crossing for #69, #71, #75 and #77, if approved by the client. Safety Engineer: It is unsafe to provide entranceway/access way within a major intersection merge area. A service lane is warranted. A single crossing is approved. Discussion resolved that

1. Merge could be located northwards 2. Optimum combined entranceway to be submit to PSE for approval

ZIP MERGE

SERVICE LANE

RAISED CENTRAL MEDIAN



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 15 -

Client Decision: Combine accessways 69-77. Resubmit to SAT. Action Taken: Amended layout submitted to RSA team. Vehicle crossings for 69-77 have been merged to provide a single accessway. #79 and #81 have been kept as separate crossings for reasons outlined above.

c) Extend the raised central median from Chn 560 to around Chn 640.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Extending the traffic island would provide safer refuge for pedestrians that might otherwise cross the road at this location. The traffic island extension however impacts on five additional crossings. There is also strong opposition from the land owner of #67, #69, #71 and #77 Otaika Rd from extending the traffic island beyond CH540, particularly as it impacts on how customers enter and exit the truck hire company at #69 Otaika Rd. Client to advise if traffic island is to be extended. Safety Engineer: As per (b) a single crossing is approved. Experience has shown that median island nose will need to be approximately 20m from any accessway to operate effectively Client Decision: Due to business raised central median is not to be extended. As per SER, redesign raised median northward with resdesign of accessways to 69-77. Action Taken: Vehicle tracking plan provided for the right turn movement out of #69 accessway. The distance between the accessway and nose of traffic island has been reduced to 12.5m as agreed with Safety Engineer and Client.

2.6 Lane and flush median widths

The proposed design comprises of 3.5 m wide lanes, with a 1.5 m wide flush median, 1.5 m shoulders and 1.8 m footpaths (refer to Figure 10). GHD have advised that a nominal 0.5 m wide berm will be provided behind the footpath to provide for signposts and light columns. A 1.5 m wide flush median is not sufficient to separate through and turning traffic. Vehicles using the median will encroach into the adjacent traffic lane and will be exposed to being hit. The proposed lane and flush median widths are not consistent with the remainder of the four lane route, which has 3.3 m wide lanes and a 2.0 m wide flush median. Consistent treatments are beneficial in encouraging safe driver and reinforcing a self-explaining road environment. The slightly narrower 3.3 m lane width has safety benefits in creating more of an urban environment and will encourage lower vehicle speeds. Lower vehicle speeds reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. Adopting the same lane and flush medians used elsewhere on the route will improve safety and will have an additional benefit in reducing the overall pavement width by 0.3 m.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 16 -

Figure 10: The proposed cross-section. Recommendation Provide 3.3 m wide lanes and a 2.0 m wide flush median. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Existing lane widths at the northern end are 3.5m. Existing lane widths at the southern end are 4.3m and 3.5m respectively. Existing lane widths on Tarewa Rd are also 3.5m. For consistency, the design initially comprised 3.5m lane widths. We note the Road Safety Audit team’s concerns relating to use of a 1.5m wide painted median. A 1.5m wide painted median applies to the 180m long section from CH80-CH260, located to the north of the new bridge. The rest of the route either has wider medians or central traffic islands. To address these concerns, we recommend reducing lane widths from north of the bridge from 3.5m to 3.35m and increasing the central medium from 1.5m to 2.0m. Undertaking the above means that the carriageway width could remain unchanged at 18.5m. Safety Engineer: A 1.5 flush median is unacceptable to NZTA. A minimum width of 2.0m is required. It was resolved that in this area only a 3.3m absolute minimum lane width is acceptable, given there is a LH 1.5m shoulder Client Decision: Provide 3.3m wide lanes and a 2.0m wide flush median Action Taken: Layout and design updated to provide a 2.0m flush median and 3.3m minimum lane width.

2.7 Footpath widths

The proposed design comprises of 1.8 m footpaths behind the kerb (refer to Figure 10). 2.5 m wide shared paths are provided through Tarewa Park on the western side of SH1N, south of Tarewa Road. The provision of 1.8 m footpaths is consistent with the remainder of the four-lane route. However, it is noted that those other sections were constrained by land requirements and that a 1.8 m footpath should be considered a minimum standard, rather than a desirable standard. Table 14.3 of the NZTA Pedestrian Planning Guide indicates that 2.4 m wide footpaths should be provided for new and improved developments adjacent to arterial roads in pedestrian districts, alongside parks, and near major pedestrian generators such as schools. All of these criteria would apply at this site given the proximity of Tarewa Park, the Northland Polytec and two primary schools in Raumanga.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 17 -

Pedestrian flows through the site are significant from Tarewa Road and along the eastern side of SH1N southwards. The auditors consider that a 2.4 m footpath should be provided through this section. For the section of SH1N north of Tarewa, consideration should be given to increasing the footpath width to between 1.8 m and 2.4 m. The savings from the recommended lane widths discussed in Section 2.6 could be utilised to increase footpath widths. Recommendations

a) Increase the footpath width on the eastern side of SH1N, south of Tarewa Road, to 2.4 m.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: The footpath could be widened to 2.4m. This however will require additional land take and impacts on driveway gradients at several locations. Safety Engineer: A 2.4m footpath is approved and subject to light poles being located at the back of the footpath. Designer to advise NZTA on implications for retaining wall and further land take possibly required. Client Decision: Increase footpath width to 2.4m where practicable. Light pole location design subject to detail design. Action Taken: Footpath width increased to 2.4m on the eastern side, south of Tarewa Rd

b) Increase the footpath widths on both sides of SH1N, north of Tarewa Road, to between 1.8 m and 2.4 m.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Footpath widths north of the bridge are constrained by the location of the existing road reserve boundary. The current design footpath width is 1.8m, with footpaths located behind the footpath. It is possible to widen the footpath up to 2.0m and install the street light poles at the back of the footpath. This could be achieved without changing existing land take requirements. Widening the footpath by more than 2.0m will require additional land take. Safety Engineer: Wider footpaths are preferred in this environment and 2.0m footpath in this area is approved. A possible mitigation to address the light pole hazard would be to use a 300mm strip of large pebble exposed concrete to distinguish footpath from the berm Client Decision: Increase footpath width to 2.0m. Action Taken: Plans updated to show 2.0m footpath with street light poles located at the back of the footpath.

2.8 Cyclist provision

The proposed design comprises of 1.5 m shoulders (refer to Figure 10). This is consistent with the remainder of the four-lane route and has been adopted as the agreed standard for on-road cyclists on the route.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 18 -

A cycle-box should be marked on the nearside right turn lane into Tarewa Road as per the markings at the double right turn from SH1N into SH14 at the next intersection to the north. The shoulder markings on the SH1N southbound shoulder should be marked as 1.5 m wide adjacent to the raised islands rather than the 1.0 m indicated on the markings plan (refer to Figure 11). A narrower shoulder past the islands increases the risk of a cyclist being hit. As recommended in post construction audits along the four-lane route, the left hand shoulders could be marked for a short length in advance of the intersection to indicate that these areas can be used as waiting areas for cyclists travelling straight through the intersection. This would help to reinforce to cyclists and motorists that these spaces are for cyclists to use as waiting areas at the signals. Hook turns could also be considered to assist right turns for cyclists who are not comfortable using the right turn cycle boxes. Markings for cyclists should be consistent throughout the four-lane route treatment and should be reviewed as a route treatment. There are no shoulders on SH1N south of the tie-in. Although this is beyond the project, NZTA should consider options to improve cyclist provision and safety south of the project.

Figure 11: The SH1N southbound shoulder width reduces to 1.0 m past the islands. Recommendations

a) Mark a cycle-box on the nearside right turn lane into Tarewa Road. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Cycle box to be added to the nearside right turn lane. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Cycle box added on the nearside right turn lane



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 19 -

b) Provide 1.5 m wide shoulders past the raised islands. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Traffic island to be cut back to provide a 1.5m wide shoulder in the southbound direction. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Traffic island cut back to provide 1.5m wide shoulder in the southbound direction

c) Consider marking the left hand shoulder approaches to the intersection green for

cyclists and providing hook turns, as a route treatment for the SH1N Whangarei four lane corridor.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: The shoulder has not been marked as a designated cycle lane. It would therefore be inappropriate to lay green surfacing and/ or hook turns without marking the entire road as a cycle route. Safety Engineer: A green surfacing is approved within the intersection environment only Client Decision: A green surfacing is approved within the intersection environment only Action Taken: Plans updated to show green surfacing within the intersection environment

d) NZTA should consider options to improve cyclist provision and safety south of the project.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Outside the scope of this project, although could be investigated if approved by the client. Safety Engineer: Client Decision: The SAT recommendation is noted No Further Action Action Taken: No changes made to plans.

2.9 Kerb profile

Although kerb profiles have not been provided, rollover (mountable) kerb profiles are a preferred safe system design as vertical kerbs add to the risk of more serious injury when vehicles lose control. NZTA have advised that they have adopted mountable kerbs as a typical safe system urban application. The designer should check which kerb profile should be provided in terms of route consistency and NZ Transport Agency requirements. Recommendation Provide rollover (mountable) kerbs.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 20 -

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: The SH14/SH1N intersection upgrade has vertical kerb. The design comprises the use of vertical kerb, which is consistent with the rest of the route. Mountable kerbs are proposed on traffic islands. Safety Engineer: Mountable kerbs is an NZTA safe system requirement. Semi mountable will be acceptable for the footpath kerbs. All traffic islands to be fully mountable. All profiles to be confirmed with NZTA Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Plans updated to show semi-mountable kerbs for footpath kerbs.

2.10 Inter-visibility at driveways and footpaths

The auditors acknowledge that the general level of visibility being provided at driveways on other recently completed lengths of the SH1N four-lane corridor improvements is good. There has been a concerted effort made to position boundary fences and walls to minimise restrictions to visibility to both the footpaths and the road. For all driveways there should be a clear line of sight between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists, to reduce the risk of collisions. Accesses should be well defined, along with restricted fence, wall and planting heights as necessary, so that pedestrians/cyclists can anticipate vehicle paths across the footpath. Boundary treatments next to driveways should not obscure pedestrians and cyclists. The use of tall, close-boarded fencing, solid structures and dense vegetation should be avoided.

The NZTA Pedestrian Planning Guide recommends a 5.0m by 2.0m “visibility splay” for high-volume driveways with over 200-vehicle movements per day (refer to Figure 12). This standard is recommended for the higher volume driveways, as it will mitigate the risk of vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. As an example, #35 Otaika Road (Cherry Court Motel) may be considered a higher volume driveway. Gates are recommended for residential properties with children to reduce the risk of them wandering onto the road. The auditors have reviewed the individual property drawings and note that particular care will be required during land negotiations and construction to ensure clear sight lines between driveways and footpaths at #26 to #44 Otaika Road (SH1N) where larger retaining walls will be required (refer to Figure 13).



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 21 -

Figure 12: The NZTA Pedestrian Planning Guide recommends a 5.0m by 2.0m “visibility splay” for high-volume driveways (Figure 14.11 of that guide).



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 22 -

Figure 13: #40 Otaika Road (SH1N) is an example where care is required to provide adequate visibility between the driveway and the footpath past the proposed retaining wall. Recommendations

a) Ensure that boundary treatments next to driveways do not obscure pedestrians and cyclists.

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. The use of visibility splays to be provided, where ever they can be accommodated along the route. Safety Engineer: Designer advised that all visibility issues at access ways will be satisfactorily resolved Client Decision: Designer advised that all visibility issues at access ways will be satisfactorily resolved Action Taken: Visibility issues exist for #28-34, #40, #42, #44 Otaika Rd. Plans updated to provide splayed crossings for each of these access ways.

b) Provide gates at residential properties with children. Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 23 -

Designer Response: At present few properties have gates. The use of gates impacts of the streetscape design, particularly if they are not required for the containment of vulnerable pedestrians or animals. Client to advise if gates are required along all or any properties. Safety Engineer: While gates may be seen to be a safe system approach the determination for provision will be a negotiation point with landowners. Client Decision: While gates may be seen to be a safe system approach the determination for provision will be a negotiation point with landowners. Action Taken: No changes made

2.11 Pedestrian facilities

The auditors consider that the provision of two signalised pedestrian phases is appropriate for the site as it provides for improved efficiency with less waiting time for pedestrians. The provision of a third phase would introduce further complexity and confusion for drivers and pedestrians and is likely to be less safe. The proposed design shows the shared path in Tarewa Park at Chn 430 RHS looping towards the road and then away from the road to the signalised crossing at Chn 392 RHS (refer to Figure 14). This could encourage pedestrians to attempt to cross at the southern leg of the intersection at around Chn 430, exposing them to being hit by vehicles. Pedestrians crossing at this location will be at particular risk of high severity injury if hit by a vehicle travelling at the speed limit, with a fatality risk above 50%. Similarly, the position of the footpath at Chn 430 LHS behind the kerb on the outside of the curve could encourage pedestrians to cross the road at this location. Repositioning the footpaths away from both sides of SH1N at Chn 430 and strengthening the visual cues with landscaping to direct pedestrians to the signalised crossing points is recommended to discourage pedestrians from crossing at other unsafe locations. The two crossings meet at the nose of a raised island (refer to Figure 14). These are too close together to provide adequate comfort and safety for pedestrians and do not provide adequate space for poles and call buttons. Generally, raised islands can present difficulties for non-motorised and visually impaired users and cut-out islands are a preferred treatment for these users. Within the islands, the kerb lines should be straight and aligned perpendicular to the crossing lines, with intersecting lines where changes of direction are required. Visually impaired pedestrians align their canes with kerb edges to identify the directions of the crossings. Therefore, clearly defined kerb edges perpendicular to crossing points assist users when approached from the side. The location of the Zebra crossing on the SH1N to Tarewa Road left turn is too far into the curve to provide good inter-visibility between vehicles and pedestrians. Visibility between approaching drivers and pedestrians waiting to cross at the kerb is restricted to around 60 m by the bridge handrail and trailing barrier terminal. A safe stopping distance of 73 m is required for a design speed of VD = 60 km/h. Moving the zebra crossing forward by approximately 3 m would significantly improve visibility from the pedestrian waiting point. Figure 15 is an indicative sketch of a possible alternative pedestrian layout to address the above issues.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 24 -

The auditors note that there are no details for the connection from the footpath on the north-eastern side of the intersection to the shared path under the bridge. NZTA have indicated that this would be provided. No details of the treatment of the shared path under the bridge have been provided and have not been audited. The auditors comment that adequate grades, lighting and the avoidance of blind spots in the underpass and on the approaches are key design considerations for user safety.

Figure 14: The pedestrian layout at the intersection. The areas with safety issues are highlighted.

Figure 15: An indicative sketch of a possible alternative pedestrian layout.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 25 -

Recommendations

a) Reposition the footpaths away from the road at Chn 430 and strengthen the visual cues with landscaping to direct pedestrians to the signalised crossing points.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Noted. Footpath alignment within park to be modified to take it away from the carriageway. Landscaping at the intersection to consider ways to encourage pedestrians to cross at the nominated crossing points. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Plans updated to show new footpath alignment within park.

b) Provide cut-out pedestrian islands with sufficient space allocation for all users, posts, call buttons etc.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: We believe raised traffic islands provide better visibility to cut out traffic islands, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians. There is also sufficient separation to ensure that crossings can be aligned and constructed with compliant pram crossings. Where required, pram crossing positions will be adjusted to ensure there are no conflicts with traffic signal infrastructure. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: No changes made

c) Revise the island layouts to ensure that they are positioned perpendicular to the crossing lines and zebra crossing. Ensure that the kerb lines within the intersection islands are straight and aligned to the crossing lines, with intersecting lines where changes of direction are required.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: As noted above, we believe raised traffic islands provide better visibility to cut out traffic islands, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians. Client to advise if traffic island to be modified to cut outs. Kerb lines within islands to be aligned to match crossing lines. Safety Engineer: Raised traffic islands are acceptable but compliant pram crossings and grades are critical for success The design has been optimised however, design stacking length for the SH1 left turn to Tarewa to be confirmed that one vehicle stacking is acceptable (GHD report) Client Decision: Design has been submitted to SAT. Awaiting response. Action Taken: northeast traffic island to be remain raised while the west and south east traffic island to have cut outs. Kerb lines within traffic island amended to match crossing lines.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 26 -

d) Reposition the Zebra crossing on the SH1N to Tarewa Road left turn further forward.

Provide adequate visibility between approaching drivers and pedestrians waiting to cross at the kerb in front of the bridge handrail and trailing barrier terminal.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: The zebra crossing was originally positioned further east to address concerns about rear end crashes as a result of left turning vehicles slowing for pedestrians on the zebra crossing. Zebra crossing to be moved closer to SH1N to improve approach visibility. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Zebra crossing move closer to SH1N.

e) Provide a connection from the footpath on the north-eastern side of the intersection to

the shared path under the bridge. Provide adequate grades, lighting and avoid blind spots in the bridge underpass and on the approaches.

Overall Rating: Comment Frequency Rating: Severity Rating: Designer Response: Noted. Connection from the northern side of the underpass to the traffic signals to be provided through the church carpark, which is on land owned by NZTA. The new bridge underpass to have lighting. The alignment of the approaches to the underpass also allow unobscured sight lines through to the other side of the bridge. Gradients on the northern ramp down to the underpass to be no more than 8% over 20m. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR – note land owned by WDC Action Taken: Plans updated to show shared path and connection to traffic signals with new lighting

2.12 Signage details

Signage is important in providing direction and guidance for all road users and can contribute towards safety. The following items should be addressed to improve signage:

i. Use RG-17 signs in place of the smaller RG-17.1 (keep left) signs to provide better readability;

ii. Move the STOP sign on Matipo Place closer to the kerb where it will be more visible;

iii. Review the control on Matipo Place, as a GIVE WAY may be more appropriate following the improvements;

iv. Remove the redundant PW-43 (road narrows) signs;

v. Provide Belisha Disks at the Zebra crossing; and

vi. Provide direction signage for pedestrians and cyclists for the connections to the shared path in Tarewa Park.

Recommendation Revise the signage details as listed above.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 27 -

Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Signage modifications to be included in updated signage plans. Safety Engineer: 1. Because the median is narrow only RG17a’s can be accommodated such that a 300mm kerb clearance is available 2. ADR 3. ADR 4. ADR 5. No: Belisha becason are required 6. ADR Client Decision: SER Action Taken: 1. RG17 used 2. Moved closer to kerb 3. Change to GIVE WAY 4. PW-43 annotated as to be removed 5. Belisha Disks shown on plans, but can be removed 6. Plans updated to show directional signage for pedestrians and cyclists in Tarewa Park

2.13 Lighting

No details of lighting for the road, pedestrian crossings, intersection or the shared path through Tarewa Park have been provided. These items have not been audited but should be provided in accordance with NZTA standards. Recommendation Provide lighting for the road, pedestrian crossing, intersection and the shared path through Tarewa Park. Overall Rating: Comment Frequency Rating: Severity Rating: Designer Response: Noted. A lighting design to ensure it meets requirements for the road, pedestrian crossings and intersections. There is no plan to provide lighting within the Tarewa Park. Client to advise if lighting is to be provided within the park. Safety Engineer: Lighting design to be submitted to the SAT. Lighting is required in the park but this to be resolved with WDC Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Updated to show lighting design in Tarewa Park

2.14 Drainage

No drainage details have been provided. These items have not been audited but should be provided in accordance with NZTA standards. Care should be taken to adequately drain low points and to avoid excessive flows past pedestrian crossing points. Recommendation



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 28 -

Provide adequate drainage for low points and avoid excessive run-off flows past pedestrian crossing points. Overall Rating: Comment Frequency Rating: Severity Rating: Designer Response: Noted. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: ADR. Drainage design will be considered in detailed design phase Action Taken: Updated drainage plans submitted to RSA team.

2.15 Access to i-centre

There is an entry-only access to the Whangarei i-centre approximately 100 m beyond the southern tie-in (refer to Figure 16). This is considered to be a sufficient separation from the merge to not be adversely impacted by the proposed design. It is likely, however, that the i-centre will be used as a facility for local residents whose accesses will be limited to left-turns only to make U-turns. This does present a safety concern, but the flush median should be marked with a right turn pocket (MOTSAM Fig 3.28b) to further reinforce the right turn facility.

Figure 16: entry-only access to the Whangarei i-centre



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 29 -

Recommendation Mark a right turn pocket (MOTSAM Fig 3.28b) in the flush median at the entry-only access to the Whangarei i-centre. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Changes to the entrance to the i-centre are outside the scope of these works. Options and treatments could be investigated if approved by the client. Safety Engineer: There is a case for a RT pocket. It was agreed that the project will include in scope Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Work to be undertaken as extension to current commission

2.16 Power boxes

There are numerous power boxes located at the back of the footpath on completed lengths of the four-laning project (refer to Figure 17). Although these are a significant safety improvement over power poles, they do present a greater tripping hazard to pedestrians and could snag cyclists. They should not be used on new projects and an underground alternative should be adopted for this project.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 30 -

Figure 17: A power box on SH1N on a previously completed project on the four-lane route. Recommendation Locate all power boxes underground. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Common Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. Client has advised that NZTA have agreed with Northpower to trial the use of underground power boxes along this project. Safety Engineer: PSE confirms that these bollards are unacceptable in a footpath. Client Decision: Underground plinths to be used. Action Taken: Power plinths to be undergrounded as part of enabling works to be undertaken by Northpower on behalf of NZTA

2.17 Culvert at Chn 100

There is a large culvert located at Chn 100 (refer to Figures 18 and 19). As this is located at the back of the footpath the culvert should either be extended to remove the fall hazard or a pedestrian handrail should be provided as fall protection. Any handrails should be frangible and not present a hazard to an errant vehicle.

Figure 18: The culvert at Chn 100 LHS.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 31 -

Figure 19: The culvert at Chn 100 RHS. Recommendation Either extend the culvert at Chn 100 away from the footpath or provide pedestrian fall protection. Overall Rating: Minor Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Unlikely Designer Response: Noted. The design to be amended to provide a pedestrian handrail along extent of the existing culvert Safety Engineer: ADR It was resolved that a pool fence design will be appropiate Client Decision: Refer to Landscape Architect for design solution. Action Taken: Plans updated to show a pedestrian handrail from ch 88m-111m

2.18 Raumanga Stream Bridge barrier

A TL-3 bridge barrier with TL-2 barriers and end terminals are proposed for the Raumanga Stream Bridge (refer to Figure 20). GHD have advised in terms of the design the following:

“There is insufficient room to accommodate a TL-3 terminal + full transition on the northern bridge approaches. There is also limited space for run out areas behind the terminals. NZTA are currently in negotiations to purchase #60 Otaika Rd (SH1) in full,



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 32 -

which would go a long way to improving options for a run out area behind the trailing edge terminal. The removal and/ or relocation of the southern vehicle crossing at #35 Otaika Rd is not supported by the Motel. We have therefore shown a proposed TL-2 terminal end with 4m transition on the southbound approach to the bridge, neither of which complies with NZTA standards. We welcome the Road Safety Audit team’s view on this matter.”

The proposed X-350 (or equivalent) leading terminal end on the northern approach to the bridge will leave an open run-out area behind the terminal, into the Raumanga Stream, at the southern access to #35 Otaika Road (Cherry Court Motel, refer to Figure 21). The stream is a significant hazard that includes the risk of drowning for vehicle occupants. The gated section of the terminal end will provide some benefit in reducing the likelihood of an errant vehicle travelling at the design speed entering the stream if directly hit. The remaining section of TL-2 and TL-3 barrier will provide adequate protection. A curved rail terminal (CRT) that returns into the access could be used in place of the X-350 (or equivalent) terminal end. Although a compliant 20 m by 6 m run-out zone could not be achieved behind the CRT before the bridge, the gated terminal end will reduce the likelihood of an errant vehicle travelling at the design speed entering the stream if directly hit. Overall, the CRT system will provide a better level of protection than a X-350 (or equivalent). If this is not feasible in terms of land purchase then providing a second TL-2 barrier, or smooth faced retaining wall, between the northern and southern access to #35, would provide further protection of the run-out area behind the X-350 (or equivalent) leading terminal approaching the bridge. The trailing terminal end on the northern approach to the bridge should similarly be treated with a CRT at either the access to #60 Otaika Road, or into Matipo Place, depending on the outcomes of property negotiations.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 33 -

Figure 20: The proposed barriers at the Raumanga Stream Bridge northern approach.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 34 -

Figure 21: The southbound approach to the Raumanga Stream Bridge.

Recommendations

a) Provide a leading curved rail terminal (CRT) that returns into the southern access to #35 Otaika Road (Cherry Court Motel). If this is not feasible, then provide a second TL-2 barrier, or smooth faced retaining wall, between the northern and southern access to #35 Otaika Road.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Thank you. One of the above two options to be progressed depending on the outcome of property negotiations with the owners of Cherry Court Motel. Safety Engineer: ADR however either way a compliant design is a requirement. The Transport Agency will not approve a non-compliant application without specific approval of the National Design Engineer Client Decision: Design to be submitted to SAT once confirmed. Action Taken: Plans updated to show TL-2 barrier terminal end outside 35 Otaika Rd



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 35 -

b) Provide a trailing curved rail terminal (CRT) that returns into either the access to #60 Otaika Road, or into Matipo Place, depending on the outcomes of property negotiations.

Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Thank you. Subject to negotiations, #60 Otaika Rd is to be purchased in full, so installing a trailing CRT at this location is feasible. Safety Engineer: AS 2.18a Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Plans updated to show CRT that returns into 60 Otaika Rd

2.19 Landscaping

No landscaping details have been provided. These items have not been audited but should be provided in accordance with NZTA standards. Care should be taken to ensure that landscaping does not impede sightlines, particularly for pedestrians (including children) and cyclists and other non-motorised users. Landscaping should also be used to direct pedestrians to the formal crossing points. Recommendations

a) Ensure that landscaping does not impede sightlines, particularly for pedestrians (including children) and cyclists and other non-motorised users.

Overall Rating: Comment Frequency Rating: Severity Rating: Designer Response: Noted. A landscaping plan will be provided as part of the detailed design drawing set. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Design drawings updated to show landscaping design

b) Provide landscaping to direct pedestrians to the formal crossing points. Overall Rating: Comment Frequency Rating: Severity Rating: Designer Response: Noted. A landscaping plan will be provided as part of the detailed design drawing set. Landscaping to consider ways to encourage pedestrians to cross at nominated crossing points. Safety Engineer: ADR Client Decision: NZTA ADR Action Taken: Design drawings updated to show landscaping design



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 36 -

2.20 Traffic Signal Advance Loops

The plans detail loops at the holding lines on the intersection and at 40 m in advance of the holding lines on SH1N. Advance detection loops at 40 m are too close to extend the signal phase sufficiently for drivers to avoid the ‘dilemma zone’. Studies have shown that a driver 40 m from the intersection travelling at 50km/h would not have time to react and as such are not in the dilemma zone, which is a greater distance from the intersection. Theoretically, the prime location would be at the safe stopping distance of 73 m from the limit line for a design speed of VD = 60 km/h. Provision of additional advance loops at 70 m would mean that the green phase could be extended if necessary by 2.5s and then again at the 40 m loops. This would provide vehicles sufficient time to clear the intersection without being forced into a dilemma decision on whether to stop or not.

Recommendation Install additional advance loops as necessary to suit the speed environment. Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Disagree. There will always be a dilemma zone for drivers, regardless of where the loops are located. Additional advance loops don’t necessarily address this issue. In SCATS, advance loops are used for queue detection, extending phases and/ or variation routines. The SH 1 / SH 14 intersection only has one set of advance loops on each approach. Similarly most recent NZTA sites in Auckland only have one set. Safety Engineer: Advance loops are required for this site. Please refer to attached drawing for dimensions of location from stop line Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Plans updated to show advance detector loops on Otaika Rd

2.21 Masking of pedestrians at crossing and access to traffic signal controller

The locating of the controller may require reconsideration to ensure that the controller does not mask pedestrians waiting to cross or obstruct their view. There are no details showing how the maintenance vehicles will access and park to service the traffic signal controller. A suitable location for safe egress and parking should be detailed. Recommendation Review the signal controller location and provide a suitable location for safe egress and parking for maintenance. Overall Rating: Moderate Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: Noted. Controller to be relocated to the northeast corner to ensure it is clear of pedestrian crossings. The adjacent NZTA owned carpark could also then be used to



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 37 -

provide safe and convenient access to the controller by maintenance personnel. Safety Engineer: Agree with designers response Client Decision: ADR Action Taken: Plans updated to show relocated position for controller box

2.22 Traffic signal aspects

The acute angle of the Tarewa Road intersection on the outside of a moderate curve on SH1N results in some of the standard traffic signal positions not being well aligned for drivers. This reduces the readability of the intersection and signal phases and reduces the level of protection for pedestrians. The proposed signal aspects are detailed in Figure 22 and the proposed phasing is detailed in Figure 23. It is noted that the route is an abnormal load route and the use of fold-down poles in certain locations may be necessary. The Heavy Haulage Association requires a design clearance width of 11.5 m. The proposed layout achieves 10.4 m, which should cover most eventualities. Care needs to be taken that signal pole locations meet the requirements for the over-dimension load requirements for SH1N. The following changes to the signal aspects are recommended to improve the readability of the signals and improve pedestrian protection:

i. Add a low level secondary signal at the central island at Chn 400 facing south to improve pedestrian protection. A 2.2 m offset from the west kerb would provide the required 11.5 m clearance width.

ii. Add a low level offside primary signal at the central island at Chn 390 facing north to improve readability on the inside of the curve. This pole would likely need to be a fold-down with a 1m offset from kerb.

iii. Consider whether it is possible to enlarge the median island sufficiently to install a three-aspect right turn lantern, or a six aspect if an extra through aspect is required. Reducing the lanes from 3.5 m to 3.3 m (as recommended in Section 2.6) will provide 1.2 m. This pole would likely need to be a fold-down. Remove all northbound aspects from pole 2.

iv. If (iii) is not possible, switch the mast arm pole 2 with the low level pole 4 to provide better secondary visibility in light of the lack of space to install a secondary on the dividing median, (adjacent loop 4). Remove the southbound overhead aspect and low level from pole 6. If necessary consider a low level on the back of pole noted in (i) above. Which could be located on the eastern kerb. The longer the outreach, the better (7 m is recommended). Consider relocating the northbound overheads to this pole and removing the low level on pole 2.

v. Add a low level offside primary signal at the Tarewa Road central island at Chn 20 facing northeast to enable the signals to be closely associated and remove the need to locate a signal on the far side of the intersection at pole 6. Install a tertiary aspect for Tarewa Road opposite the secondary pole 4.

vi. Include additional pedestrian push buttons on the central median P2. It is likely that a late pedestrian starting in phase B would not get all the way across and could get



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 38 -

stranded. Consider adding one to pole noted in (v) for P1 although this is not as important.

Figure 24 & 25 are indicative sketches of possible alternative signal aspect layouts to address the above issues.

Figure 22: The proposed signal aspects.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 39 -

Figure 23: The proposed signal phasing



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 40 -

Figure 24: An indicative sketch of a possible alternative signal aspect layout if a median island is possible.

Figure 25: An indicative sketch of a possible alternative signal aspect layout where a median island cannot be provided. Recommendation Revise the traffic signal aspects locations as listed above.

Overall Rating: Significant Frequency Rating: Common Severity Rating: Likely Designer Response: As noted by the Road Safety Audit team, Otaika Rd is an over-dimension route and installing poles on the central median island would not comply with NZ Heavy Haulage Association design guidelines. For this reason, the use of signal poles on the central traffic islands was avoided. Use of signal poles on the central island will result in on going damage to traffic signal aspects, with associated costs. Client to advise if the alternative signal layout is to be progressed. Safety Engineer: Confirm the over dimension route can be accommodated with poles in the median and if so adopt signals design as shown on the attached drawing Client Decision: SER Action Taken: Traffic signals updated based on feedback from NZTAs traffic signal engineer which varies slightly from the above recommendation.



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 41 -

3. Audit Statement We certify that we have used the available plans, and have examined the specified roads and their environment, to identify features of the project we have been asked to look at that could be changed, removed or modified in order to improve safety. The problems identified have been noted in this report. Signed: Mike Sullivan, BE (Civil), MIPENZ Date: 29/04/2015 Director, Equilibrium Engineering,

Signed: Date: 14/05/2015 David Spoonley, BEng, CEng, CIHT, MICE Senior Roading and Safety Engineer Opus International Consultants, Whangarei Signed: Date: 28/04/2015 Jeff Greenough, BEng, Central Engineer, Traffic Signals and Intelligent Transport Systems NZ Transport Agency, Wellington Designer: Name.....Ray Johnston.................. Position: Principal Engineer

Signature.... .......... Date: 28.8.15……… Safety Engineer: Name.....Brian Rainford Position: PTSE

Signature Date: 23.6.2015 Project Manager: Name.......................................... Position:……………..

Signature.................................... Date:…………………

Action Completed: Name.......................................... Position:……………..

Signature.................................... Date:…………………



Fax 09 436 1497

2/12/2015



- 42 -

Project Manager to distribute audit report incorporating decision to designer, Safety Audit Team Leader, Safety Engineer and project file. Date:..........................

1

Reference: 090 Client Reference: 5 August 2015 Jacque Bell Project Manager Highway and Network Operations NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 106602 Auckland 1143 Sent by email to: [email protected] Dear Jacque SH1N Tarewa Road Intersection – Safety Audit Addendum (Detailed Design). This letter report presents the outcomes of a safety audit of the outstanding design items for the

SH1N/Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements in Whangarei.

1. Scope

An interim design stage safety audit was completed in April 2015. Subsequent to that audit, the

audit team was requested to review the following design components that were not available in

April:

Drainage;

Lighting; and

Landscaping.

This report should be read as an addendum to the audit report “SH1N Tarewa Road Intersection

Improvements: Safety Audit – Interim Design Stage, April 2015” by Engineering Equilibrium

Ltd. Both reports can be considered together as completing the formal detailed design stage

safety audit of the project.

The audit team for this addendum report comprised of:

Mike Sullivan CPEng, BE (Civil), MIPENZ

Director

Engineering Equilibrium Limited, Whangarei.

Dave Spoonley BEng, CEng, CIHT, MICE

Senior Roading and Safety Engineer

Opus International Consultants, Whangarei Jeff Greenough was not involved in the addendum report, as the items being reviewed did not relate to the traffic signals (that being his specialist area of technical knowledge).

mailto:[email protected]

2

This addendum report follows the methodology of the April report, with the findings,

recommendations and rankings using the same format as previously.

The addendum audit was carried out on Thursday, 30th

July 2015. 2. Documentation

GHD provided the following drawings for the addendum audit:

Stormwater Layout Plans (51-32688-W101 to W105, rev A);

Lighting Layout Plans (51-32688-E101 to E108, rev A); and

Proposed Landscape Treatment Plans (51-32688-L101 to L105, rev A).

3. Safety audit findings and recommendations

3.1 Manhole covers in road

There are a number of stormwater and sewer manholes that are located within the road. Some of these are located with traffic lanes, and others within the flush or raised islands. If these are constructed well, with suitable strength and durability, they can perform adequately. However, if the manhole covers are not fully level with the finished road surface and/or the cover surface becomes polished, then they can be a hazard for cyclists and motorcyclists, who may slip or lose control on them. Best Safe System practice is ensuring that there are no manhole covers within traffic lanes or shoulders. The stormwater manholes from Chn 380 RHS to 550 RHS are of additional concern due to their location in the turning and braking areas of the intersection, where they will be subject to additional loading and attrition. Maintenance of these manholes will be difficult, as traffic management will significantly impact on the operation of the intersection. The stormwater and sewer manholes on Tarewa Road at Chn 60 will also be difficult to maintain as traffic management will significantly impact on the operation of the intersection. Recommendation

Locate manhole covers clear of traffic lanes and shoulders.

Overall Rating: Minor

Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely

Designer Response: The manholes do not need to be relocated to accommodate the road

widening work. They could however be relocated if approved by the client to avoid the

problems identified by the Road Safety Audit team. This will incur additional physical

works costs. Client to confirm stormwater and sewer lines and associated manholes to be

relocated to outside of the new carriageway.

Safety Engineer: The Transport Agency and its predecessors relocate such manholes

from the traffic lanes but will allow them in the shoulders. There is ample history of

issues with manholes in the traffic lane. They must be either in the shoulder or the the

3

footpath and flush to avoid conflict with pedestrians or cyclists. The most appropriate

location is in the footpath.

Client Decision: Investigate location of manholes in footpath. If not possible relocate in

shoulders.

Action Taken: It’s difficult to install the new SW and Sewer lines within the footpath for

the section to the north of Tarewa Bridge due to the number of new underground

services and associated chambers. As agreed with the SAT and Safety Engineer, the SW

along this section will be installed along the painted median, instead of the shoulder to

avoid on-going safety issues with cyclists using the shoulder. The manholes will be

installed in the middle of the painted median to avoid manholes being located in wheel

paths for traffic right turning into Matipo Place.

3.2 Low point at Chn 335 There is a low point on the offside of the southbound lane, next to the raised island at Chn 335. A double catchpit (SWCP B6) is located in this area at Chn 225, however, it does not coincide with the low point indicated on the drainage contour plans. This should be checked to ensure that the low point is adequately drained. Recommendation

Ensure adequate drainage at the low point on the offside of the southbound lane, next to the raised island at Chn 335.

Overall Rating: Minor

Frequency Rating: Occasional Severity Rating: Unlikely

Designer Response: The contours shown on the storm water layout plan are correct.

These contours show no low point at CH335. Cross sections have been updated to match

the layout plan.

Safety Engineer: Transport Agency accepts designer response (ADR)

Client Decision: ADR

Action Taken: Cross sections updated to match layout plan to show no low point at

CH335.

3.3 Lighting at Zebra crossing A single black and white pedestrian crossing pole and light is provided on the left hand side of

the zebra pedestrian crossing on the left turn into Tarewa Road. Best practice is to duplicate

these on each approach to the crossing to improve the delineation of the crossing and reduce the

risk of pedestrians being hit by vehicles. Other zebra crossings on SH1N through Whangarei

between Selwyn Avenue and Tarewa Road have a duplicate arrangement (refer to Figure 1).

4

Figure 1: Duplicate pedestrian crossing poles and lights at the left turn from Maunu Road

into SH1N.

Recommendation

Provide pedestrian crossing poles and lights on each side of the zebra pedestrian crossing on the

left turn into Tarewa Road.

Overall Rating: Moderate

Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely

Designer Response: The one lamp meets the current lighting requirements. A second

could be installed if approved by the client.

Safety Engineer: An additional lamp should be installed

Client Decision: Provide for additional lamp

Action Taken: Plans updated to show an additional lamp on the traffic island (right side)

of the new pedestrian crossing.

5

3.4 Lighting levels at tie-ins The use of LED lighting for the project will result in a high level of illumination. The northern tie-in is close to the SH1N/SH14/Maunu Road intersection. This was upgraded in 2014 and has high pressure sodium lights. The southern tie-in is close to the accesses to the i-Centre and a pedestrian crossing point at Chn 680. This section of SH1N has a lower lighting standard than other sections of SH1N in the Whangarei urban area. The proposed lighting level will result in a noticeable drop in illumination at the tie-ins, particularly in the southbound direction at the southern tie-in. This could reduce night time safety as drivers adjust to a change in lighting in locations where there are conflict points with intersections, accesses and pedestrian crossing points. Consideration should be given to transitioning lighting levels beyond the conflict points at the tie-ins. Recommendation

Consider transitioning lighting levels beyond the conflict points at the tie-ins.

Overall Rating: Moderate

Frequency Rating: Infrequent Severity Rating: Likely

Designer Response: Lighting tie-ins could be changed to provide a longer transition past

the extent of works if approved by the client.

Safety Engineer: The Transport Agency agrees with the SAT concern. Tie in lighting to

be installed. Designer response is inadequate. The responsibility for design remains with

the designer not the Agency. A more appropriate response would be in the form of a

recommendation to the Agency

Client Decision: Provide for transitioning lighting levels beyond the conflict points at the

tie-ins

Action Taken: Lighting design has been extended to provide a transition between new

lighting and tie ins to existing lighting in the vicinity of the i-Centre.

3.5 Planting at Pedestrian crossing locations

Low planting is proposed behind the footpath by the Zebra crossing at the left turn into Tarewa

Road and in the central islands at the signalised pedestrian crossing (refer to Figure 2). Adequate

visibility between approaching motorists and pedestrians at these locations is a critical

component of safe design. Planting choice and maintenance must provide for this to minimise

the risk of pedestrians being hit by vehicles. A safe intersection sight distance of 123 m for a

60 km/h design seed and a 2 second reaction time is considered an appropriate minimum

standard. Plant selection within the sight line envelope should ensure that they do not grow

above 0.3 m in height.

6

Figure 2: Low planting is proposed behind the footpath by the Zebra crossing at the left

turn into Tarewa Road and in the central islands at the signalised pedestrian crossing.

Recommendation

Provide adequate visibility between approaching motorists and pedestrians where low planting is

proposed by the Zebra crossing and in the central islands at the signalised pedestrian crossing.

Overall Rating: Significant

Frequency Rating: Common Severity Rating: Likely

Designer Response: Low planting is proposed for the central traffic island.

Safety Engineer: Maximum height is 400mm from the pavement level and this means

ground planting only. Recent roundabouts with some higher planting required removal

and replacement at maintenance cost which is unsatisfactory.

Client Decision: Low level planting to maximum 400mm high to be provided.

Action Taken: Plans updated to show low level planting species that will grow no higher

than 400mm high along the central traffic island and left turn slip lane into Tarewa Rd.

Comment [SM1]: Please do not type in these two boxes. If you choose to include a disclaimer, it will be inserted here. Otherwise, please leave blank.

7

4. Audit Statement

We certify that we have used the available plans, and have examined the specified roads and

their environment, to identify features of the project we have been asked to look at that could be

changed, removed or modified in order to improve safety. The problems identified have been

noted in this report.

Signed:

Mike Sullivan, BE (Civil), MIPENZ Date: 05/08/2015

Director, Equilibrium Engineering,

Signed:

David Spoonley, BEng, CEng, CIHT, MICE Date: 14/05/2015

Senior Roading and Safety Engineer

Opus International Consultants, Whangarei

Designer: Name Ray Johnston

Position: Principal Engineer

Signature

Date: 28th

August 2015

Safety Engineer: Name..........................................

Position:……………..

Signature....................................

Date:…………………

Project Manager: Name..........................................

Position:……………..

Signature....................................

Date:…………………

Action Completed: Name Ray Johnston

Position: Principal Engineer

Signature

Date: 9th

November 2015

Project Manager to distribute audit report incorporating decision to designer, Safety Audit

Team Leader, Safety Engineer and project file. Date:..........................

Documents

SH1N Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements - Whangarei · 4 Johnson Street Onerahi Whangarei Phone 09 436 1498 Fax 09 436 1497. 2/12/2015 SH1 Tarewa Road Intersection Improvements