robertson street and jones street intersection, naracoorte · robertson street and jones street...

Robertson Street and Jones Street Intersection, Naracoorte

Road Safety Audit

Naracoorte Lucindale Council

November 2013

Ref No. 20130950R002

Ref No. 20130950R002 Robertson Street and Jones Street Intersection, Naracoorte Road Safety Audit

© Tonkin Consulting 2012

This document is, and shall remain, the property of Tonkin Consulting. 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 History and Status

Rev Description Author Reviewed Approved Date

A Issued for External Use HER JHW JHW 18/11/2013


Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background Information 1

1.2 Proposed Development 3

2 The Road Safety Audit 4

3 Priority Rating 5

4 Crash Data 6

5 Audit Findings and Recommendations 7

5.1 Heavy Vehicles 8

5.2 High Speed 9

5.3 Signage and Linemarking 9

5.4 Pavement and Kerb Condition 10

5.5 Vulnerable Road Users 11

5.6 Sight Distances 12

6 Summary of Recommendations 14

6.1 Heavy Vehicles 14

6.2 High Speed 14

6.3 Signage and Linemarking 14

6.4 Pavement and Kerb Condition 14

6.5 Vulnerable Road Users 14

6.6 Sight Distances 14

7 Concluding Statement 15

Tables Table 3.1 Risk Frequency 5 Table 3.2 Risk Severity 5 Table 3.3 Risk Matrix 5 Table 4.1 Summary of Crash Data 2007-2012 6

Figures Figure 1.1 Site Map (Source: Bing) 1 Figure 1.2 Intersection (Source: Bing) 2 Figure 1.3 Current HML B-Double Routes (Source: RAVnet) 2 Figure 1.4 B-Double vehicle travelling along the correct route (vehicle travelling south) 3


Figure 5.1 Eastern approach to intersection along Robertson Street 7 Figure 5.2 Western approach to intersection along Robertson Street 7 Figure 5.3 Southern approach to intersection along Jones Street 8 Figure 5.4 Northern approach to intersection along Jones Street 8 Figure 5.5 Misleading sign on Jones Street 9 Figure 5.6 Poor condition of kerb 10 Figure 5.7 Poor condition of pavement and spoon drain 11 Figure 5.8 Sight distance right along Jones Street from Robertson Street (west leg) 12 Figure 5.9 Sight distance left along Jones Street from Robertson Street (west leg) 12 Figure 5.10 Sight distance left along Jones Street from Robertson Street (east leg) 13 Figure 5.11 Sight distance right along Jones Street from Robertson Street (east leg) 13

Appendices Appendix A Crash Data Appendix B Road Safety Audit Checklist

Ref No. 20130950R002 Robertson Street and Jones Street Intersection, Naracoorte Road Safety Audit 1

1 Introduction Tonkin Consulting was engaged by the Naracoorte Lucindale Council to undertake a number of

Road Safety Audits within the Council region.

The inspections were undertaken between the 16th

and 18th of September 2013 by John Willbery,

an experienced Heavy Route Assessor and Senior Road Safety Auditor, and Hayley Rohrlach, a

Project Engineer. The conditions were overcast with periods of rain; with heavy rain having fallen

in the area in the previous days.

This report provides an assessment for Robertson Street and Jones Street and is part 2 of 5, as

listed below:

20130950R001 – Culvert Inspections

20130950R002 – Robertson Street and Jones Street

20130950R003 – Church Street and McRae Street

20130950R004 – Pinkerton Road and Old Caves Road

20130950R005 – Langkoop Road and Concrete Bridge Road

1.1 Background Information

The Naracoorte Lucindale Council have identified the Robertson Street and Jones Street

intersection as an area of concern for vehicle safety. The intersection is located within the

Naracoorte Town centre (Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1 Site Map (Source: Bing)

Naracoorte Town Centre


Figure 1.2 Intersection (Source: Bing)

Both Robertson Street and Jones Street are council controlled and the speed limit of the streets

is 50km/h.

Neither of the roads are gazetted for any heavy vehicle use (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3 Current HML B-Double Routes (Source: RAVnet)

While neither of these roads are gazetted for heavy vehicle use, Council have indicated that due

to poor signage, heavy vehicles travelling from the south fail to follow the Riddoch Highway as it

curves to the left (Figure 1.4) and instead continue north along Gordon Street.

Robertson Street

Jones Street


Figure 1.4 B-Double vehicle travelling along the correct route (vehicle travelling south)

The vehicles continue to travel along Gordon Street and are forced undertake the left turn onto

Jones Street and right onto Smith Street (otherwise known as the Wimmera Highway). Smith

Street is gazetted for B-Double vehicles; however the intersection with Jones Street in not

arranged to handle the heavy vehicles.

1.2 Proposed Development

Council has indicated a desire to develop Robertson Street as a second “main street” behind

Smith Street and to incorporate the intersection of Jones Street into this redevelopment.

These streets are currently car dominated; however Council have prepared concepts for the

introduction of bike lanes along Robertson Street and wish to understand how vulnerable road

users currently utilise the intersection and the safety of this.


2 The Road Safety Audit A Road Safety Audit is an examination of road conditions (or proposed conditions) with a specific

focus on road safety implications for all anticipated road users. The road safety audit is a

subjective review of the operating conditions of the specific location and identification of issues

and factors that might contribute to the potential for, or severity of vehicle collisions.

The Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6 “Road Safety Audit” highlights a multiple stage audit

review process which covers the principal stages of a design project from the feasibility stage

through to the audit of existing roads. In this instance, the audit of existing roads was

undertaken.

The review was conducted in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6 “Road

Safety Audit” and consideration was given to a range of road safety indices including:

Delineation Regulatory control Traffic mix

Road condition Vulnerable road users Other issues

Road standard Roadside hazards

The check list of considerations (taken from Austroads Part 6) is included in Appendix B.

In addition to the above, the design aspects of the proposal were also reviewed against the

following Austroads Guidelines:

Guide to Road Design – Part 3: Geometric Design;

Guide to Road Design – Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections; and

Guide to Road Design – part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers

Crash data was obtained from the geo-coded crash data base which is held by Tonkin

Consulting.

Consideration was given to the likely road safety issues confronting all road users that could be

reasonably expected to use the road.

Whilst the audit is reasonably detailed it is not intended to investigate every aspect of influence

on road function or safety.

It should not be expected that a review has been carried out in relation to issues requiring

specific verification testing in order to confirm conformity with all of the relevant (and possibly

exacting) standards, or where a level of detailed investigation is required that is inconsistent with

the general audit process.

The Audit process consisted of:

Inspection of the existing conditions carried out during daylight hours on the 17th

and 19th

September 2013; and

Photographing various features to provide visual reference for the range of safety issues

identified by the auditors.

Examination of the site from a wider perspective on the roadway to gain an understanding of

road conditions from the viewpoint of a road user.


3 Priority Rating The findings of the audit, along with a comment/recommendation and priority rating for each

identified issue are provided within Section 5.

The priority ratings used are based on the risk ranking provided within the Austroads Guide to

Road Safety: Part 6 Road Safety Audit.

Table 3.1 Risk Frequency

Frequency Description

Frequent Once or more per week

Probable Once or more per year (but less than once a week)

Occasional Once every five or ten years

Improbable Less often than once every ten years

Table 3.2 Risk Severity

Severity Description

Catastrophic Likely multiple deaths

Serious Likely death or serious injury

Minor Likely minor injury

Limited Likely trivial injury or property damage only

Table 3.3 Risk Matrix

Frequent Probable Occasional Improbable

Catastrophic Intolerable Intolerable Intolerable High

Serious Intolerable Intolerable High Moderate

Minor Intolerable High Moderate Low

Limited High Moderate Low Low

The risk ratings used within this report are:

Intolerable – Must be corrected.

High – Should be corrected or the risk significantly reduced, even if the treatment cost is

high.

Moderate – Should be corrected or the risk significantly reduced, especially if the treatment

cost is medium, but not high.

Low – Should be corrected or the risk reduced, especially if the treatment cost is low.

Comment


4 Crash Data The crash data for the six years 2007 – 2012 is shown in Appendix A and a summary is

presented in the table below.

Table 4.1 Summary of Crash Data 2007-2012

Crash Severity

Property Damage

Injury 1

Fatal

Crash Type

Hit Object

Right Angle 1

Side Swipe

Total Crashes 1


5 Audit Findings and Recommendations This intersection is located directly behind the main street of Naracoorte, Smith Street.

Robertson Street runs parallel to Smith Street and Jones Street intersects Smith Street at right

angles.

Jones Street has the right of way in the junction arrangement and the approach to the

intersection from the south is downhill (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.1 Eastern approach to intersection along Robertson Street

Figure 5.2 Western approach to intersection along Robertson Street


Figure 5.3 Southern approach to intersection along Jones Street

Figure 5.4 Northern approach to intersection along Jones Street

5.1 Heavy Vehicles

As outlined in the earlier sections, there is a potential for the presence of B-doubles travelling

north on Jones Street.


Recommendation: Reposition and enlarge the heavy vehicle route signage at the Riddoch

Highway left turn and monitor the effectiveness of the second heavy route sign recently installed.

HIGH

Recommendation: Undertake a traffic management plan for the Town Centre to assess the

impacts of heavy vehicles and preferred traffic movements on the town.

HIGH

5.2 High Speed

A 4-way intersection is inherently dangerous.

In this location, motorists approaching the intersection from the south are travelling downhill,

sometimes with significant speed. It was also observed that motorists on Robertson Street often

failed to observe the stop signs (refer to section 5.3).

Recommendation: Consider if any traffic calming techniques can be introduced to encourage

lower speeds. This may possibly include construction of a roundabout to replace the existing

four-way intersection.

COMMENT

5.3 Signage and Linemarking

A no left turn sign with two additional plates has been placed on a stobie pole on the north

western corner of the intersection (Figure 5.5). The plates read ‘FOR ARTICULATED VEHICLES’

‘AT SMITH STREET’; the location of the sign is misleading and confusing. It is assumed that the

second plate was installed as drivers understood the sign to applied to a no left turn onto

Robertson Street.

Figure 5.5 Misleading sign on Jones Street

Recommendation: Increase the size of the sign and relocate it either: closer towards Smith

Street or well before the Robertson Street intersection.


HIGH

While on site, it was noticed that motorists did not observe the stop signs on Robertson Street

and treated the stop signs as give way signage. Due to the pavement cracking, the linemarking

(i.e. the STOP bar) has deteriorated and faded and is not as clear as it should be.

Recommendation: Restore the current linemarked stop lines.

INTOLERABLE

5.4 Pavement and Kerb Condition

As can be seen in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7; the pavement and kerb and spoon drains are in a

poor condition with the pavement showing significant crocodile cracking.

Figure 5.6 Poor condition of kerb


Figure 5.7 Poor condition of pavement and spoon drain

Recommendation: Program the reconstruction the pavement and kerbing in the coming years.

COMMENT

5.5 Vulnerable Road Users

The south eastern and south western corners of this intersection feature substandard kerb

ramps, the north eastern corner does not have any kerb ramps and then north western corner

features a rollover kerb. This does not allow pedestrians to easily cross the road and does not

provide suitable crossings for disabled users.

Recommendation: Install kerb ramps at each corner of the intersection.

MODERATE

Vehicles currently park on the northern footpath of Robertson Street (Figure 5.6). This does not

provide pedestrians an unimpeded pathway or safe method travelling along Robertson Street.

Recommendation: Prohibit 90 degree parking on Robertson Street and consider replacing the

existing valley drain with kerb and gutter to provide greater definition between the road and

footpath.

MODERATE

Council has indicated a desire to develop Robertson Street as a second “main street” behind

Smith Street and to incorporate the intersection of Jones Street into this redevelopment. These

streets are currently car dominated and to achieve a successful outcome the focus should be

directed towards the pedestrian rather than the motor vehicle.

Recommendation: Consider undertaking a streetscaping study to integrate low speed vehicle

movement with increased pedestrian and cyclist activity.

MODERATE


5.6 Sight Distances

The sight distances along Jones Street from the west leg of Robertson Street are satisfactory

(Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9). The sight distance to the left from the east leg of Robertson Street is

also satisfactory (Figure 5.10), however vision to the right is impeded by shrubs behind the

footpath (Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.8 Sight distance right along Jones Street from Robertson Street (west leg)

Figure 5.9 Sight distance left along Jones Street from Robertson Street (west leg)


Figure 5.10 Sight distance left along Jones Street from Robertson Street (east leg)

Figure 5.11 Sight distance right along Jones Street from Robertson Street (east leg)

Recommendation: Clear out the foliage in the north eastern corner of the junction.

INTOLERABLE


6 Summary of Recommendations

6.1 Heavy Vehicles

Reposition and enlarge the heavy vehicle route signage at the Riddoch Highway left turn and

monitor the effectiveness of the second heavy route sign recently installed. HIGH

Undertake a traffic management plan for the Town Centre to assess the impacts of heavy

vehicles and preferred traffic movements on the town. HIGH

6.2 High Speed

Consider if any traffic calming techniques can be introduced to encourage lower speeds. This

may possibly include construction of a roundabout to replace the existing four -way intersection.

COMMENT

6.3 Signage and Linemarking

Increase the size of the sign and relocate it either: closer towards Smith Street or well before the

Robertson Street intersection. HIGH

Restore the current linemarked stop lines. INTOLERABLE

6.4 Pavement and Kerb Condition

Program the reconstruction the pavement and kerbing for the coming years. COMMENT

6.5 Vulnerable Road Users

Install kerb ramps at each corner of the intersection. MODERATE

Prohibit 90 degree parking on Robertson Street and consider replacing the existing valley drain

with kerb and gutter to provide greater definition between the road and footpath. MODERATE

Consider undertaking a streetscaping study to integrate low speed vehicle movement with

increased pedestrian and cyclist activity. MODERATE

6.6 Sight Distances

Clear out the foliage in the north eastern corner of the junction. INTOLERABLE


7 Concluding Statement This road safety audit has been conducted for the sole purpose of identifying road environment

deficiencies that could potentially affect the safety of road users. The identified issues and

associated recommendations are submitted for consideration.

John Willbery

Senior Accredited Road Safety Auditor

Hayley Rohrlach

Project Engineer


Appendix A Crash Data

© T

ON

KIN

CO

NS

ULT

ING


ACCIDENT SEVERITY

Accident data from Jan 2007 to Dec 2012

© T

ON

KIN

CO

NS

ULT

ING


ACCIDENT TYPES

Accident data from Jan 2007 to Dec 2012


Appendix B Road Safety Audit Checklist

Checklist 6 : Existing roads: road safety audit

Issue Yes No Comment

6.1 Road alignment and cross section

1 Visibility; sight distance

Is sight distance adequate for the speed of traffic using the route?

N Not to the right on the eastern leg of Robertson Street along Jones Street.

Is adequate sight distance provided for intersections and crossings? (for example, pedestrian, cyclist, cattle, railway.)

Y

Is adequate sight distance provided at all private driveways and property entrances?

Y

2 Design speed

Is the horizontal and vertical alignment suitable for the (85th percentile) traffic speed?

Y

If not: - are warning signs installed? - are advisory speed signs installed?

N/A

Are the posted advisory speeds for curves appropriate?

N/A

3 Speed limit/speed zoning

Is the speed limit compatible with the function, road geometry, land use and sight distance?

Y

4 Overtaking

Are safe overtaking opportunities provided?

N/A

5 Readability by drivers

Is the road free of elements that may cause confusion? For example: - is alignment of the roadway clearly defined? - has disused pavement (if any) been removed or treated? - have old pavement markings been

Y


removed properly? - do tree lines follow the road alignment? - does the line of street lights or the poles follow the road alignment?

Is the road free of misleading curves or combinations of curves?

Y

6 Widths

Are medians and islands of adequate width for the likely users?

N/A

Are traffic lane and carriageway widths adequate for the traffic volume and mix?

Y

Are bridge widths adequate?

N/A

7 Shoulders

Are shoulders wide enough to allow drivers to regain control of errant vehicles?

N/A

Are shoulders wide enough for broken-down or emergency vehicles to stop safely?

N/A

Are shoulders sealed?

N/A

Are shoulders traffickable for all vehicles and road users? (i.e. are shoulders in good condition)

N/A

Is the transition from road to shoulder safe? (no drop-offs.)

N/A

8 Crossfalls

Is appropriate superelevation provided on curves?

N/A

Is any adverse crossfall safely managed (for cars, trucks, etc.)?

N/A

Do crossfalls (carriageway and shoulder) provide adequate drainage?

Y

9 Batter slopes

Are batter slopes traversable by cars and trucks that run off the road?

N/A

10 Drains

Are roadside drains and culvert end walls traversable?

N/A


6.2 Auxiliary lanes

1 Tapers

Are starting and finishing tapers located and aligned correctly?

N/A

Is there sufficient sight distance to the end of the auxiliary lane?

N/A

2 Shoulders

Are appropriate shoulder widths provided at merges?

N/A

Have shoulder widths been maintained beside the auxiliary lane?

N/A

3 Signs and markings

Have all signs been installed in accordance with the appropriate guidelines?

N/A

Are all signs conspicuous and clear?

N/A

Does all linemarking conform with these guidelines?

N/A

Is there advance warning of approaching auxiliary lanes?

N/A

4 Turning traffic

Have right turns from the through lane been avoided?

N/A

Is there advance warning of turn lanes?

N/A

6.3 Intersections

1 Location

Are all intersections located safely with respect to the horizontal and vertical alignment?

Y

Where intersections occur at the end of high-speed environments (for example, at approaches to towns), are there traffic control devices to alert drivers?

N

2 Visibility; sight distance


Is the presence of each intersection obvious to all road users?

Y

Is the sight distance appropriate for all movements and all road users?

N

Is there stopping sight distance to the rear of any queue or slow-moving turning vehicles?

Not to the right on the eastern leg of Robertson Street along Jones Street.

Has the appropriate sight distance been provided for entering and leaving vehicles?

Y

3 Controls and delineation

Are pavement markings and intersection control signs satisfactory?

Y

Are vehicle paths through intersections delineated satisfactorily?

Y

Are all lanes properly marked (including any arrows)?

Y

4 Layout

Are all conflict points between vehicles safely managed?

Y

Is the intersection layout obvious to all road users?

Y

Is the alignment of kerbs obvious and appropriate?

Y

Is the alignment of traffic islands obvious and appropriate?

N/A

Is the alignment of medians obvious and appropriate?

N/A

Can all likely vehicle types be accommodated?

Y

Are merge tapers long enough?

N/A

Is the intersection free of capacity problems that may produce safety problems?

Y

5 Miscellaneous

Particularly at rural sites, are all intersections free of loose gravel?

N/A

6.4 Signs and lighting


1 Lighting

Has lighting been adequately provided where required?

The intersection is lit, however no investigation was undertaken.

Is the road free of features that interrupt illumination? (for example, trees or overbridges)

Y

Is the road free of lighting poles that are a fixed roadside hazard?

Y

Are frangible or slip-base poles provided?

N/A

Ambient lighting: if it creates special lighting needs, have these been satisfied?

N/A

Is the lighting scheme free of confusing or misleading effects on signals or signs?

N/A

Is the scheme free of any lighting black patches?

N/A

2 General signs issues

Are all necessary regulatory, warning and direction signs in place? Are they conspicuous and clear?

N

There is a sign located on the north east corner which is misleading and confusing.

Are the correct signs used for each situation, and is each sign necessary?

Y

Are all signs effective for all likely conditions? (for example, day, night, rain, fog, rising or setting sun, oncoming headlights, poor lighting)

Y

If restrictions apply for any class of vehicle, are drivers adequately advised?

Y

If restrictions apply for any class of vehicle, are drivers advised of alternative routes?

N

3 Sign legibility

In daylight and darkness, are signs satisfactory regarding: - visibility? - clarity of message? - readability/legibility at the required distance?

Y

Is sign retroreflectivity or illumination satisfactory?

Y

Are signs able to be seen without being hidden by their background or adjacent

Y


distractions?

Is driver confusion due to too many signs avoided?

Y

4 Sign supports

Are sign supports out of the clear zone? Y

If not, are they: - frangible? - shielded by barriers (e.g. guard fence, crash cushions)?

N/A

6.5 Markings and delineation

1 General issues

Is the line marking and delineation: - appropriate for the function of the road? - consistent along the route? - likely to be effective under all expected conditions? (day, night, wet, dry, fog, rising and setting sun position, oncoming headlights, etc.)

N

Linemarking is in poor condition, especially for the stop lines.

Is the pavement free of excessive markings? (for example, unnecessary turn arrows, unnecessary barrier lines, etc.)

Y

2 Centrelines, edgelines, lane lines

Are centrelines, edgelines, lane lines provided? If not, do drivers have adequate guidance?

Y

Have RRPMs been installed where required?

N

If RRPMs are installed, are they correctly placed, correct colours, in good condition?

N/A

Are profiled (audible) edgelines provided where required?

N/A

Is the linemarking in good condition?

N

Is there sufficient contrast between linemarking and pavement colour?

N

3 Guideposts and reflectors

Are guideposts appropriately installed?

N/A

Are delineators clearly visible?

N/A


Are the correct colours used for the delineators?

N/A

Are the delineators on guard fences, crash barriers and bridge railings consistent with those on guideposts?

N/A

4 Curve warning and delineation

Are curve warning signs and advisory speed signs installed where required?

N/A

Are advisory speed signs consistent along the route?

N/A

Are the signs correctly located in relation to the curve? (i.e. not too far in advance.)

N/A

Are the signs large enough?

N/A

Are chevron alignment markers (CAMs) installed where required?

N/A

Is the positioning of CAMs satisfactory to provide guidance around the curve?

N/A

Are the CAMs the correct size?

N/A

Are CAMs confined to curves? (not used to delineate islands, etc)

N/A

6.6 Crash barriers and clear zones

1 Clear zones

Is the clear zone width traversable? (i.e. drivable)

N Roads are kerbed

Is the clear zone width free of rigid fixtures? (if not, can all of these rigid fixtures be removed or shielded?)

N/A

Are all power poles, trees, etc., at a safe distance from the traffic paths?

Y

Is the appropriate treatment or protection provided for any objects within the clear zone?

N/A

2 Crash barriers

Are crash barriers installed where necessary?

N/A

Are crash barriers installed at all necessary locations in accordance with the relevant guidelines?

N/A


Are the barrier systems suitable for the purpose?

N/A

Are the crash barriers correctly installed?

N/A

Is the length of crash barrier at each installation adequate?

N/A

Is the guard fence attached correctly to bridge railings?

N/A

Is there sufficient width between the barrier and the edge line to contain a broken-down vehicle?

N/A

3 End treatments

Are end treatments constructed correctly?

N/A

Is there a safe run-off area behind breakaway terminals?

N/A

4 Fences

Are pedestrian fences frangible?

N/A

Are vehicles safe from being speared by horizontal fence railings located within the clear zone?

N/A

5 Visibility of barriers and fences

Is there adequate delineation and visibility of crash barriers and fences at night?

N/A

6.7 Traffic signals

1 Operations

Are traffic signals operating correctly?

N/A

Are the number, location and type of signal displays appropriate for the traffic mix and traffic environment?

N/A

Where necessary, are there provisions for visually impaired pedestrians? (for example, audio-tactile push buttons, tactile markings)

N/A

Where necessary, are there provisions for elderly or disabled pedestrians? (for example, extended green or clearance phase)

N/A

Is the controller located in a safe position? (i.e. where it is unlikely to be hit, but

N/A


maintenance access is safe.)

Is the condition (especially skid resistance) of the road surface on the approaches satisfactory?

N/A

2 Visibility

Are traffic signals clearly visible to approaching motorists?

N/A

Is there adequate stopping sight distance to the ends of possible vehicle queues?

N/A

Have any visibility problems that could be caused by the rising or setting sun been addressed?

N/A

Are signal displays shielded so that they can be seen only by the motorists for whom they are intended?

N/A

Where signal displays are not visible from an adequate distance, are signal warning signs and/or flashing lights installed?

N/A

Where signals are mounted high for visibility over crests, is there adequate stopping sight distance to the ends of traffic queues?

N/A

Is the primary signal free from obstructions on the nearside footway to approaching drivers? (trees, light poles, signs, bus stops, etc.)

N/A

6.8 Pedestrians and cyclists

1 General issues

Are there appropriate travel paths and crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists?

N

There is no official cycle route, and there are not enough kerb ramps at the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross.

Is a safety fence installed where necessary to guide pedestrians and cyclists to crossings or overpasses?

N/A

Is a safety barrier installed where necessary to separate vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist flows?

N/A

Are pedestrian and bicycle facilities suitable for night use?

N/A


2 Pedestrians

Is there adequate separation distance between vehicular traffic and pedestrians on footways?

N

Cars have been permitted to park on the northern footpath of Robertson Street and impede pedestrian traffic.

Is there an adequate number of pedestrian crossings along the route?

N Kerb ramps are not provided on both north corners of the intersection.

At crossing points is fencing oriented so pedestrians face oncoming traffic?

N/A

Is there adequate provision for the elderly, the disabled, children, wheelchairs and baby carriages? (for example, holding rails, kerb and median crossings, ramps)

N

Not enough kerb ramps, and are not to standard with tactile etc.

Are adequate hand rails provided where necessary? (for example, on bridges, ramps)

N/A

Is signing about pedestrians near schools adequate and effective?

N/A

Is signing about pedestrians near any hospital adequate and effective?

N/A

Is the distance from the stop line to a cross walk sufficient for truck drivers to see pedestrians?

Y

3 Cyclists

Is the pavement width adequate for the number of cyclists using the route?

Y

Is the bicycle route continuous? (i.e. free of squeeze points or gaps)

N/A

Are drainage pit grates bicycle safe? Y

4 Public transport

Are bus stops safely located with adequate visibility and clearance to the traffic lane?

N/A

Are bus stops in rural areas signposted in advance?

N/A

Are shelters and seats located safely to ensure that sight lines are not impeded? Is clearance to the road adequate?

N/A

Is the height and shape of the kerb at bus stops suitable for pedestrians and bus

N/A


drivers?

6.9 Bridges and culverts

1 Design features

Are bridges and culverts the full formation width?

N/A

Are bridge and culvert carriageway widths consistent with approach conditions?

N/A

Is the approach alignment compatible with the 85th percentile travel speed?

N/A

Have warning signs been erected if either of the above two conditions (i.e. width and speed) are not met?

N/A

2 Crash barriers

Are there suitable traffic barriers on bridges and culverts and their approaches to protect errant vehicles?

N/A

Is the connection between barrier and bridge safe?

N/A

Is the bridge free of kerbing that would reduce the effectiveness of barriers or rails?

N/A

3 Miscellaneous

Are pedestrian facilities on the bridge appropriate and safe?

N/A

Is fishing from the bridge prohibited? If not, has provision been made for safe fishing?

N/A

Does delineation continue over the bridge?

N/A

6.10 Pavement

1 Pavement defects

Is the condition of the pavement edges satisfactory?

N/A

Is the transition from pavement to shoulder free of dangerous edge drop offs?

N/A

Is the pavement free of defects (for example, excessive roughness or rutting, potholes, loose material, etc.) that could

N

Significant crocodile cracking occurring over the whole intersection.


result in safety problems (for example, loss of steering control)?

2 Skid resistance

Does the pavement appear to have adequate skid resistance, particularly on curves, steep grades and approaches to intersections?

N/A – testing wasn’t undertaken

Has skid resistance testing been carried out where necessary?

N/A

3 Ponding

Is the pavement free of areas where ponding or sheet flow of water could contribute to safety problems?

Y

4 Loose stones/material

Is the pavement free of loose stones and other material?

Y

6.11 Parking

1 General issues

Are the provisions for, or restrictions on, parking satisfactory in relation to traffic safety?

N

Vehicles currently park on the northern footpath of Robertson Street and impede pedestrian access.

Is the frequency of parking turnover compatible with the safety of the route?

Y

Is there sufficient parking for delivery vehicles so that safety problems due to double parking do not occur?

Y

Are parking manoeuvres along the route possible without causing safety problems? (for example, angle parking.)

Y

Is the sight distance at intersections and along the route, unaffected by parked vehicles?

Y

6.12 Provision for heavy vehicles

1 Design issues


Are overtaking opportunities available for heavy vehicles where volumes are high?

N/A

Does the route generally cater for the size of vehicle likely to use it?

N

B-Double vehicles fail to observe the correct route further to the west and have to use this intersection

Is there adequate manoeuvring room for large vehicles along the route, at intersections, roundabouts, etc.?

Y

Is access to rest areas and truck parking areas adequate for the size of vehicle expected? (consider acceleration, deceleration, shoulder widths, etc.)

N/A

2 Pavement/shoulder quality

Are shoulders sealed at bends to provide additional pavement for long vehicles?

N/A

Is the pavement width adequate for heavy vehicles?

Y

In general, is the pavement quality sufficient for the safe travel of heavy and oversized vehicles?

N

Pavement is in poor condition and is not suitable for heavy vehicles.

On truck routes, are reflective devices appropriate for truck drivers' eye heights?

N/A

6.13 Floodways and causeways

1 Ponding, flooding

Are all sections of the route free from ponding or flow across the road during wet weather?

Y

If there is ponding or flow across the road during wet weather, is there appropriate signposting?

N/A

Are floodways and causeways correctly signposted?

N/A

2 Safety of devices

Are all culverts or drainage structures located outside the clear roadside recovery area?

N/A

If not, are they shielded from the possibility of vehicle collision?

N/A


6.14 Miscellaneous

1 Landscaping

Is landscaping in accordance with guidelines? (for example, clearances, sight distance)

N

Foliage on the NE corner impedes the sight distances to the right from Robertson Street (east)

Will existing clearances and sight distances be maintained following future plant growth?

N

Does the landscaping at roundabouts avoid visibility problems?

N/A

2 Temporary works

Are all locations free of construction or maintenance equipment that is no longer required?

N/A

Are all locations free of signs or temporary traffic control devices that are no longer required?

N/A

3 Headlight glare

Have any problems that could be caused by headlight glare been addressed? (for example, a two-way service road close to main traffic lanes, the use of glare fencing or screening)

N/A

4 Roadside activities

Are the road boundaries free of any activities that are likely to distract drivers?

Y

Are all advertising signs installed so that they do not constitute a hazard?

Y

5 Errant vehicles

Is the roadside furniture on the verges and footways free of damage from errant vehicles that could indicate a possible problem, hazard or conflict at the site?

Y

6 Other safety issues

Is the embankment stability safe?

N/A


Is the route free of unsafe overhanging branches?

Y

Is the route free of visibility obstructions caused by long grass?

Y

Are any high-wind areas safely dealt with?

N/A

If back-to-back median kerbing is used is it: - adequately delineated? - obvious where it starts? - obvious at intersections? - unlikely to be a hazard to pedestrians?

N/A

7 Rest areas

Is the location of rest areas and truck parking areas along the route appropriate?

N/A

Is there adequate sight distance to the exit and entry points from rest areas and truck parking areas at all times of the day?

N/A

8 Animals

Is the route free from large numbers of animals? (for example, cattle, sheep, kangaroos, koalas, wombats, etc.)

N/A

If not, is it protected by animal-proof fencing?

N/A

9 Safety aspects not already covered

Have all other matters which may have a bearing on safety been addressed?

Y

robertson street and jones street intersection, naracoorte · robertson street and jones street...

Documents