Consulting Civil & Traffic Engineers Belmont Avenue, Belmont ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT COMMENTS] THE BUCHAN GROUP 14 June 2016 A48
Consulting Civil & Traffic Engineers
Belmont Avenue, Belmont
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
[WITH CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT COMMENTS]
THE BUCHAN GROUP
14 June 2016
A48
Page 2
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
Page 3
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
Page 4
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
Page 5
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
Page 6
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
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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
Page 10
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
Page 11
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
Page 12
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
Page 13
APPENDIX 1 – DESIGN DRAWINGS
A60
Page 14
A61
Page 15
A62
Page 16
A63
Page 17
ENLARGEMENT OF SECTIONS OF ABOVE DRAWINGS
A64
Page 18
A65
Page 19
A66
Page 20
A67
Page 21
APPENDIX 2 – CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
A68
Page 22
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
Page 23
APPENDIX 3 – REVISED DESIGN DRAWINGS – 13 JUNE 2016
A70
Page | 24
A71
Page | 25
A72