A Designer’s View on the Road Safety Audit Process Mark Connelly 18 November 2008

From a Designer’s viewpoint Audits - a help or a hindrance? Does the process bring value? Designer / Auditor interface Common “problem” areas Feedback for future schemes Some case studies

Help or Hindrance? It doesn’t matter – it’s a legal requirement It can be both a help and a hindrance It often depends on the clarity of information provided to the Audit team The information presented for audit should be in keeping with the stage of the design Stage 1 should give enough information on the cross-section of the road and the likely types of road features – this helps the audit team assess the “setting” Stage 2 should give as much detail as possible to allow the audit team envisage what the scheme will look like in 3-Dimensions (or 5- Dimensions if you take movement and environment into account) Stage 3 there should be no surprises and no hangovers from the Stage 2 audit

Help or Hindrance? Consider the audit team as an integral part of the process, not just something to be ‘tagged on’ at the end Try to ensure that the process concentrates on safety issues Details are often important – if requested both parties need to consider

Does the process bring value? It will always bring value as it is an independent view – and a link reminding the design team of the “real-life” impact of the design Again, how much value will depend on what level of information you make available to the audit team Timing is important – consider this at all stages Should concentrate solely on safety and standards relating to safety

Designer/Auditor interface Roles need to be clear and agreed The process needs to be agreed and the flow of Design information and audit reports A “first round of comments” can often help to clarify any uncertainty over the design intent prior to issue of report(s) Independence of the audit team is important, but this does not mean that you cannot engage with them and talk over any issues Try and get to the root of potential problems to ascertain the degree of severity Be prepared to provide additional details if this will help

Common “problem” areas Highly restrictive land space constraints, often found in a Design & Build type of project Design programme and phasing of Design release to audit team Departures from standard* Junctions and trying to “squeeze” designs between existing roads How to deal with “flat” areas of carriageway Road markings Roundabouts

Feedback for future schemes Early feedback before the final report(s) Consider the timing of the audit in the Design programme Details are important to both parties Always meet for a thorough de-brief before each stage

Feedback for future schemes Problems often re-occur Example – dropped kerbs DTR guidance published to reduce bull-nose kerb upstands from 20/25mm to 0/6mm No standard production kerbs The requirement for 20mm up-stands still in contract requirements and still no production kerbs suitable for 0/6mm upstands

Case studies M8 Junction 10 Broxden Roundabout Glasgow Harbour M77/GSO A830 Arisaig M74 Completion

Case studies – M8 Junction 10 Roundabouts Road Markings (arrows) Slip road width

Case studies – Broxden Roundabout Road markings (spiral on the circulatory carriageway) Segregated left-turn lane (draft tech memo)

Case studies – Glasgow Harbour Signs & road markings Junctions Gyratory

Case studies – M77/GSO Mearns Junction Roundabouts

Case studies – A830 Arisaig 30mph section through AGLV Departures

Case studies – M74 Completion Junctions

Key points Earlier the better – good/clear relationships Departures process – “safety” section should have input from RSA Should concentrate solely on safety and standards relating to safety Wholly independent RSA team and leader should be highly trained/experienced Continuity of Audit team is important 3-D thinking and imagination (supplemented by perspective views), but the quality of Design information plays a large part in this