belmont avenue, belmont road safety audit · belmont avenue, belmont road safety audit ... 4 1.2....

Consulting Civil & Traffic Engineers

Belmont Avenue, Belmont

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

[WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT COMMENTS]

THE BUCHAN GROUP

14 June 2016

A48

Document Status

Rev No. Author Reviewedby

Date Issued for Signature Date

A G Miles DraftReview

09/06/16

0 Final

1 CARcomments

14/6/16

Roadmiles Pty Ltd

ABN 13636 393 647 / ACN 136 342 348

PO BOX 174

Bayswater WA 6053

Phone 0417 433 657

Email: [email protected]

© Roadmiles Pty. Ltd. 2016

H:\Projects\2016\Buchan Group - Belmont Forum\Report\Belmont Ave RSA - v1.docx

A49

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4

1.1. Scope of Project ................................................................................................................. 4

1.2. Road Safety Audit .............................................................................................................. 4

1.3. Study Area.......................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Auditor and Audit Process ................................................................................................. 7

1.5. Audit Exclusions ................................................................................................................ 7

2. Findings and Recommendations................................................................................. 8

2.1. Design Issues (general) ...................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Road Geometry .................................................................................................................. 8

2.3. Parking ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.4. Special Road Users............................................................................................................. 9

2.5. Traffic management ......................................................................................................... 10

2.6. Lighting ............................................................................................................................ 11

3. Audit Statement ........................................................................................................ 12

Appendix 1 – Design Drawings.......................................................................................... 13

Appendix 2 – Corrective Action Report............................................................................. 21

Appendix 3 – Revised Design Drawings – 13 June 2016 .................................................. 23

A50

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope of Project

The audit considered the detailed design and landscaping plans available for the creation of a new

dining precinct along the Belmont Avenue frontage of the Belmont Forum Shopping Centre.

This report is intended to comment on road safety in relation to constructed form, sight distances

and general road safety in an objective manner. The audit represents a Stage 6 Existing Roads

Audit as defined in the Austroads document Guide to Road Safety – Part 6 Road Safety Audit

(2009) AGRS06/09.

The area is in the local government district of the City of Belmont, Western Australia.

The traffic flow and crash data were obtained from Main Roads Western Australia.

1.2. Road Safety Audit

Road Safety Auditing is a formalised procedure which can be applied to form comments on all

phases of road project development and to identify unsafe features of an existing road system.

In reviewing the safety aspects of a proposed or existing road, the reporting procedure is not

intended as a redesign process but seeks to outline potential road safety issues with each road

configuration and establish a basis upon which design could produce an acceptable solution to any

identified safety problem where acceptance of a risk is assessed as being inappropriate. The

assessment of the options is intended to provide a basis for comparison between the relative

merits of each option in terms of the inherent risks associated with each. Judgment as to the most

effective intersection treatment should balance the findings of this safety audit against

consideration of other engineering, social, and environmental aspects. The recommendations

contained in this report indicate the nature or direction of a solution, rather than specifying the

details of how to solve any problem.

The objectives of a road safety audit are –

To examine the road in context with the road environment and form conclusions about the

likely safety performance and potential hazard level of the proposed infrastructure

To identify potential safety problems in the design for the section of road audited

To qualify the level of risk associated with potential hazards identified

To evaluate the road section in terms of interaction with its surrounds and nearby roads, and to

visualise potential impediments and conflicts for road users

To report on the conclusions drawn and to make recommendations regarding aspects which

involve unnecessary or unreasonable hazards

To provide a comparative basis for assessing the desirability of each option in terms of safety.

A51

1.3. Study Area

The study area is located on the frontage of the Belmont Forum Shopping Centre along Belmont

Avenue, in a north-westerly direction from the intersection with Fulham Street. The area is

approximately 7km from the Perth CBD as shown on Figure 1. The more precise location of the

study area is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1 - Site Location

Figure 2 - Belmont Avenue Frontage in this audit

A52

The Belmont Forum Shopping Centre is a major district shopping serving a catchment about

10km in diameter.

Belmont Avenue is a two lane, divided carriageway road that links to Great Eastern Highway and

is classified in the Perth Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy as a District Distributor road.

The minimum lane width is 4m and the median is 3m wide. The verges along both sides have

pathways and low bush landscaping.

The speed zone along Belmont Avenue is 40km/h and along Fulham Street is 50km/h.

The crash data on record for the section of Belmont Avenue between Wright Street and Fulham

Street for the period January 2011 to December 2015 showed 12 crashes occurred at the zebra

marked pedestrian crossings with 2 involving pedestrians being hit, 9 rear end crashes and 1 side

swipe crash between vehicles.

A further 11 crashes occurred at driveways however the records do not allow the differentiation of

the two major driveways near Wright Street and the driveways in this study section.

A53

1.4. Auditor and Audit Process

A fundamental of Road Safety Auditing is that the auditor(s) should be independent, have a sound

understanding and knowledge of road safety principles and traffic and road design standards and

have been trained to undertake safety audits. As such, the auditor appointed to review this site

was:

Geoff Miles (Roadmiles Pty. Ltd.)

Also present was: -

This Road Safety Audit has been carried out in accordance with the Austroads publication Guide

to Road Safety – Part 6 Road Safety Audit (2009).

The audit relied on a site inspection in conjunction with traffic data and drawings of proposed

roadside infrastructure changes provided by The Buchan Group.

Supporting information includes:

Concept and Hard Landscape Drawings Appendix 1

Corrective Action Report Appendix 2

Revised Concept Plans Appendix 3

1.5. Audit Exclusions

The following items have not been included in the information made available before the

inspection and therefore have been excluded from the audit:

Drainage

Underground Service locations

A54

2. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following issues were considered when identifying potential safety issues:

2.1. Design Issues (general)

The median and through lanes along Belmont Avenue are not to be altered as part of the proposed

project. The existing alignment is straight and is easy for drivers to understand.

Note

The Belmont Avenue design for through traffic has no hazards that impact with this roadside

design.

2.2. Road Geometry

The road geometry and speed zone along Belmont Avenue requires Safe Intersection Sight

Distances (SISD) of 74m at the maximum 40km/h. Also checked is the Stopping Sight Distance

(SSD) listed in Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3 – Geometric Design as 40m in a 40km/h

zone.

The total distance is 160m between the roundabout at the Fulham Street intersection and the

roundabout for the major car park access control.

There are two plateau speed control devices at the zebra marked pedestrian crossings at 80m and

110m from Fulham Street.

The practical speed for most of the length of this design section is less than 40km/h.

The landscaping near the two marked pedestrian crossings do not restrict the approach or stopping

sight distances to below the recommended minimums.

The 500mm high concrete wall near the pedestrian crossing at the Fulham Street roundabout are

sufficiently low that pedestrians, people in wheel-chairs and people in mobility scooters will be

visible to approaching drivers from at least 40m away.

Note

Adequate sight distance at the three pedestrian crossing locations will exist.

2.3. Parking

There are three constructed parallel parking bays along Belmont Avenue that would be removed

by this roadside development.

Note

Parking will not directly impact on the safety of this roadside project.

A55

2.4. Special Road Users

Cyclists

A recent change in the WA Road Traffic Code allows for any cyclist to use any pathway.

The hard landscaping allows for a through movement area of a minimum of 2m wide for the

length of the development. This width would result in the squeezing of pedestrians and cyclists.

Medium speed (15km/h) to high speed (30+km/h) cycling through this precinct should be

discouraged for the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians.

Consideration should be given for two bicycle chicanes to complement the design architecture to

be constructed near the ends of the precinct.

Recommendation

Consider the construction of two bicycle chicanes near the ends of the precinct.

Three bicycle parking racks are indicated to be installed at the westerly end of the precinct

adjacent to a redefined access to a car park. That access is presently a left turn out only.

However it appears to be widened to allow left turns in. The bicycle racks would be in a conflict

zone should two vehicles collide at this access. The area is not protected by bollards.

Recommendation

Provide bollards at the westerly end of the precinct to protect the bicycle rack area.

Pedestrians

The safe movement for pedestrians is critical in this precinct including people with any

disabilities.

The design drawings show kerb ramps that would be too steep for people using wheelchairs or

mobility scooters. The ramp gradient has to be less than 1 in 8 and the included angle between

the slope of the road and the slope of the ramp has to be a minimum of 166°.

Recommendation

Kerb ramps at pathways (not the two zebra crossings) be reconstructed to comply with

AS1428.1-2009 kerb ramps (refer AS1428.1 Figure 24A Section A-A).

The width of pedestrian pathways is recommended in Austroads AGRD06A-09 Guide to Road

Design – Pedestrian And Cyclist Paths. A single pedestrian should be given a clear space of

900mm and a wheelchair 1200mm. A total width of 1800mm is recommended for two

wheelchairs to pass.

In this shopping precinct a width of 1800mm would be considered appropriate for shopping

trolleys and wheelchairs to share the pathway.

A56

Note

The minimum widths of pathways and ramps would provide 1800mm of clear space.

Near the three pedestrian kerb access ramps and the two zebra crossings there are bollards to deter

vehicles form using those facilities to enter into the pedestrian precinct. The width between the

bollards need to be small enough to prohibit a small car without damage and large enough to

provide the clear space for the pedestrian and mobility scooter users. Another type of user that

requires additional clear width is a parent with pram and toddler. Therefore the minimum clear

width would be 1200mm and the maximum width 1500mm. The spacing shown on the drawings

appear to be centre to centre of bollards with the closest being 1210mm. Therefore minor changes

to a few bollards’ spacing may be appropriate.

Recommendation

Check the clear spacing between bollards at the five road crossing locations to ensure a

minimum of 1200mm will exist.

2.5. Traffic management

The management of vehicle speed is not required as part of this precinct design.

Traffic management in this precinct is to reduce the risk of errant vehicles entering the area.

There are bollards and cast in-situ concrete walls to reduce vehicle speeds or stop vehicles before

they become hazards to the precinct users.

Generally the vehicle flow is parallel to the precinct therefore the risk of vehicle entry is low for

most of the length.

There are three areas where turning vehicles will be for part of the turn facing the precinct. Those

locations are:

- The Fulham Street roundabout

- The access to the car park on the opposite side of Belmont Avenue

- The left turn at the modified car park access at the westerly end of the precinct

These three areas are protected by concrete wall or a combination of bollards and concrete walls.

At the Fulham Street roundabout the wall is a maximum of 700mm high tapering down towards

each end. The enclosed area has a sloping garden bed. The closest part of the wall is 550mm

from the edge of the road. Due to the proximity to the edge of road it is possible for an errant

vehicle to start to rise as it crosses the kerb and the lift to continue across the garden bed and the

wall. Locating the wall further away from the edge of road and reducing the slope of the garden

bed would reduce that risk.

A57

Recommendation

Locate the concrete wall near the Fulham Street roundabout further from the edge of road

and reduce the slope of the garden bed.

The access to the car park on the opposite side of Belmont Avenue will be opposite the proposed

stage area of the roadside precinct. The stage is to be raised on a 900mm high wall with a 12mm

thick safety glass screen above the wall. The wall will be 900mmm from the edge of road at the

closest place. The risk is that a vehicle is accidentally accelerated into the wall. The impact load

may damage the wall and cause the glass screen to fall. In this location the wall should be

designed (if not already) to cater for a vehicle impact without transferring vibration loading to the

glass screen.

Recommendation

The concrete wall at the stage should be designed (if not already) to cater for a vehicle

impact without transferring vibration loading to the glass screen.

At the westerly end of the precinct the are at a lower slope and are further from the edge of road.

While providing some protection for pedestrians it is less likely for a vehicle to rise above / over

this wall.

2.6. Lighting

The roadside development will include features that in darkness could be trip / fall hazards.

Lighting details were not provided therefore the proposal may already have addressed the need to

provide illumination to the level required for pedestrian safety.

Recommendation

The street lighting or local dedicated lighting be to the level required by the Australian

Standards for pedestrian safety.

A58

3. AUDIT STATEMENT

This audit has been carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any existing features of the

audit site that could be altered or removed to improve safety. The identified problems have been

noted in the checklist contained in Appendix 1 of this report. The associated recommendations

are forwarded for consideration.

When considering the implementation of any of the recommendations of this report, the designer

should seek appropriate expert advice regarding any technical matters contained in the report both

of a general nature and for those in relation to specific issues. The expert advice may be

necessary to investigate relevant matters in sufficient detail to determine what action(s), if any, is

to be taken

Key findings include:

The design generally provides a safe through route for pathway users.

Additional bollards would be required to provide some protection to the cycle rack area.

Bollard spacing at road crossing locations should be no less than 1200mm clear spacing and no

more than 1500mm.

Kerb ramps need to be designed to meet AS1428.1 requirements.

The design / location of two pieces of concrete wall need to be reviewed.

Lighting needs to be to the level required for pedestrian safety.

Geoff Miles

Senior Road Safety Auditor

Date 9th June 2016.

A59

APPENDIX 1 – DESIGN DRAWINGS

A60

ENLARGEMENT OF SECTIONS OF ABOVE DRAWINGS

A64

APPENDIX 2 – CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT

A68

BELMONT FORUM – PROPOSED BELMONT AVENUE DINING PRECINCT RSA – June 2016

Findings. Recommendations. FindingRatings

Agree / disagree. Comments.

Cyclist and pedestrian issues

Consider the construction of two bicycle chicanesnear the ends of the precinct

Low Considered Not considered essential at this time.

Provide bollards at the westerly end of the precinctto protect the bicycle rack area

Low Added Extra bollard added to concept.

Kerb ramps at pathways (not the two zebracrossings) be reconstructed to comply withAS1428.1-2009 kerb ramps

Low Changed All kerb ramps comply with City ofBelmont specification and AS1428.1.Details in Civil design drawings.

Check the clear spacing between bollards at thefive road crossing locations to ensure a minimumof 1200mm will exist

Low Changed Minor changes make as needed to ensureminimum clear widths near bollardssuitable for wheelchair and other wheelunits use (trolleys, prams, mobilityscooters).

Traffic Management treatments

Locate the concrete wall near the Fulham Streetroundabout further from the edge of road andreduce the slope of the garden bed

Low Changed Concrete wall moved about 0.5m toreduce gradients..

The concrete wall at the stage should be designed(if not already) to cater for a vehicle impactwithout transferring vibration loading to the glassscreen

Low Included in structural design

Street lighting

The street lighting or local dedicated lighting be tothe level required by the Australian Standards forpedestrian safety

Low Checked13/06/16

Lighting consultant advised levels of 20lux maintained on average withadditional lighting to canopies outsidethe line of awning to the mall mainwalkways.

AS1158 of category P3 / P4 is 1.7 luxaverage.

A69

APPENDIX 3 – REVISED DESIGN DRAWINGS – 13 JUNE 2016

A70

Page | 24

A71

Page | 25

A72

belmont avenue, belmont road safety audit · belmont avenue, belmont road safety audit ... 4 1.2....

Documents