Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Project: Sydney Metro City & Southwest – TSE Works Document No: SMCSWTSE‐JCG‐SWL‐TM‐PLN‐002296 DOCUMENT APPROVAL REVISION DATE PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY REMARKS A 21/10/17 Sue Lewis . B 28/10/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For external review C 22/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval D 27/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval – minor amendment to driveway location E 28/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval – amendments due to RSA F 1/12/17 S Lewis J Julius T Ferrero For approval post RMS comments
69
Embed
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296 Waterloo Site Establishment€¦ · Figure 2: Waterloo station site 2.1.1. Botany Road Botany Road is classified as a State road. It commences at Redfern
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
Project: Sydney Metro City & Southwest – TSE Works
Document No: SMCSWTSE‐JCG‐SWL‐TM‐PLN‐002296
DOCUMENT APPROVAL REVISION DATE PREPARED
BY REVIEWED BY
APPROVED BY
REMARKS
A 21/10/17 Sue Lewis .
B 28/10/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For external review
C 22/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval
D 27/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval – minor amendment to driveway location
E 28/11/17 S Lewis T Ferrero For approval – amendments due to RSA
F 1/12/17 S Lewis J Julius T Ferrero For approval post RMS comments
REVISION DATE PREPARED BY
REVIEWED BY
APPROVED BY
REMARKS
Signature:
Waterloo Site Establishment CTMP for Approval
Tino / Sue / DeclanIn accordance with Schedule C1 Appendix A.9 Section 2.1 ( c ) and 2.2 ( c ) of the Principal’s General Specifications G10 – Traffic and Transport Management and Minister’s Condition of Approval E82 for the Sydney Metro City & South West the Roads and Maritime Service of NSW and the Sydney Coordination Office approve the Sydney Metro City & South West Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment - TSE Works Rev F SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296 for site establishment subject to the following requirements:
• Obtaining Road Occupancy Licences (ROLs) from the Transport Management Centre(TMC) as required;
• Obtaining an approved hoarding installation certificate from city of Sydney Council;• Complying with haulage routes as approved by SCO/RMS and described in Appendix 4 of
the CTMP;• Addressing any issues raised by Council, STA, Taxi Council, residents/businesses,
Emergency Services in the CTMP approval process;• Addressing any safety issues identified in the Road Safety Audit review of this CTMP;
The Construction Traffic Management Plan being updated as required prior toconstruction commencing to ensure consistency with the final Construction Traffic Management Framework when it is approved
• Promptly addressing any CBD Taskforce and/or TMC and/or RMS issue that eventuatesduring the works
Regards
Giovanny RamirezAssociate Director Operations CBD & EastCBD Transport Taskforce | Sydney Coordination Office Transport for NSW
www.transport.nsw.gov.au
Transport for NSWSydney Coordination Office
RAMIREZ GiovannyThu 14/12/2017 1:23 PM
To:Tino Ferrero ; Sue Lewis Declan Mc Garry
Cc:BERRY Adam ISSA Steven C MELLA Carl
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 3 of 20
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5
Table 4: Site contacts ............................................................................................................. 13
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 5 of 20
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Overview
The Sydney Metro is Australia’s biggest public transport project. The metro project currently consists of:
Stage one is the Sydney Metro Northwest, formerly the North West Rail Link, connecting the north western suburbs of Sydney, through to Chatswood.
Stage two is the City & South West project linking Chatswood through to Sydenham. Stage three includes the upgrade of the existing rail line between Sydenham and
Bankstown.
Figure 1 shows the proposed Sydney Metro project and stages.
Figure 1: Sydney Metro Project
1.2. Purpose of this Plan
The purpose of this Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP): WATERLOO SITE ESTABLISHMENT is to detail the site operations for the site establishment phase of the Sydney Metro City & South West project. This plan will set out the traffic management initiative that will be deployed to minimise disruption to, and ensure the safety of the wide range of stakeholders potentially affected by the works, including but not limited to: motorists, pedestrians; cyclists; public transport users, local residents and property owners; business owners; and workers/staff engaged on the Project.
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 6 of 20
2. Locality and existing conditions
The Waterloo station site is bounded by Botany Road to the west, Raglan Street to the north, Cope Street to the east and Wellington Street to the south. The site is shown in Figure 2 below in red. The existing parking restrictions at the site are detailed below and are also included in Appendix 1.
Figure 2: Waterloo station site
2.1.1. Botany Road
Botany Road is classified as a State road. It commences at Redfern Street and ends at Port Botany. The section of Botany Road north of the site is one way southbound. At the site location, Botany Road is four lane two way road. The speed limit on Botany Road is 50km/hr.
A bus stop exists on Botany Road southbound carriageway, north of the Wellington Street intersection. No Stopping Wedding, Funeral Vehicles excepted (10AM-3PM and 7PM-8PM Monday to Friday) is in place outside of the Church, which is the only building to be retained on the subject site. Clearways are in operation during the AM and PM peak hours (6AM-10AM and 3PM-7PM).
Designated loading zones (10AM-3PM M-F) exist at the southern end of the site, south of the bus stop. Outside of these hours the parking is unrestricted. 1P parking is available at all other locations between 10AM-3PM Monday to Friday).
A heritage mail box is located on Botany Road at its intersection with Raglan Street – a mail zone exists at this location.
There is no on road cycling facility. The footpaths are typically 3.8m wide with an effective pedestrian width of 2.6m due to the location of street furniture including the mail boxes. There
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 7 of 20
are a number of driveways crossing the footpath. Signalised pedestrian crossings exist on all legs at the intersections with Wellington Street and Raglan Street/ Henderson Road.
2.1.2. Wellington Street
Wellington Street is classified as a local road and is under the control of Council. Wellington Street commences in Waterloo to the east and ends at Botany Road. To the west of Botany Road Wellington Street is renamed Buckland Street. The speed limit on Wellington Street is 50km/hr. Roundabout control exist at the Cope Street intersection and traffic signals are installed at the Botany Road intersection.
Unrestricted parking exists on the northern side of Wellington Street between Botany Road and Cope Street.
The existing footpaths are approximately 3.7m wide and have numerous driveways crossing the northern path. There are no cycling facilities on this section of Wellington Street.
2.1.3. Cope Street
Cope Street is a local road which connects Turner Street, Redfern to north of McEvoy Street, Waterloo. A speed limit of 50 km/hr is in place. Roundabouts are installed at intersections with Raglan Street and Wellington Street.
Unrestricted parking exists on both sides of Cope Street between Raglan and Wellington Streets.
The existing footpaths are approximately 3.7m wide but with an effective width for pedestrian usage of 2.8m. There are numerous driveways crossing the western path. There are no cycling facilities on this section of Cope Street.
A bus stop exists on the eastern side of Cope Street, immediately north of Wellington Street. This bus stop services route 355 – Bondi Junction to Marrickville Metro. Another bus stop exists on the eastern side of Cope Street immediately south of Raglan Street which also services the route 355 – Bondi Junction to Marrickville Metro.
2.1.4. Raglan Street
Raglan Street is a local road which connects Elizabeth Street, Waterloo to Henderson Road, Alexandria. A speed limit of 50 km/hr is in place.
1P parking is available for the site’s frontage. There is roundabout control at the intersection with Cope Street.
The existing footpaths are approximately 3.7m wide with an effective pedestrian width of 2.8m. There is 1 driveway on the southern side. There are no cycling facilities on this section of Raglan Street. Signalised pedestrian crossings exist on all legs at the intersections with Botany Road/ Henderson Road/ Raglan Street.
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 8 of 20
2.2. Site Establishment
Duration: 5 months Timing: November 2017 to April 2018
2.2.1. Works Required
The existing scaffolding and hoarding will remain in place from the DELTA demolition works. The current parking restrictions will be retained along the site frontages.
Access and egress is proposed from Botany Road. This access/ egress will utilise the previously approved access/ egress points. Between approval and March 2018 the current access arrangement will be used for both access/ egress as the demolition works are still continuing. The use of the local surrounding streets is not proposed due to the possible impact on the community as this would require routing of trucks on local roads with significant changes required to existing infrastructure. The use of Botany Road would ensure that the trucks used at the site would be maintained on the arterial road system.
Site establishment works will occur during normal construction hours of 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 on Saturday. Site establishment works include:
Piling works Internal site set up including office facilities Noise wall construction including pile cap
Sewer works are required on Botany Road and will be undertaken at night using contra flow arrangements. Works are anticipated to take approximately 2-3 nights. These works are associated with the relocation of the church sewer from Cope Street to Botany Road.
2.2.2. Operating Conditions
The access/ egress is proposed on Botany Road using existing driveway locations, that previously serviced industrial uses at the site and were approved for use for the DELTA Group demolition works. There will be approximately 520 truck movements per month, averaging 27 truck movements per full workday. There will be minimal truck numbers during the peak periods (AM and PM), refer to Table 1.
2.2.3. Impact on Traffic Flows
The operation of the site will have minimal impact on existing traffic conditions as the traffic generation is typically low and vehicles will be restricted to left in/ left out. Post the arrival of drill rigs on site, traffic generation at this site will typically be in the order of 520 truck movements per month. Piling rigs and pile cages will be delivered outside of peak periods.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the EIS and TSE traffic movements at the site.
Table 1 Average vehicle movements per hour
TIME EIS LIGHT VEHICLES
TSE LIGHT VEHICLES
EIS HEAVY VEHICLES
TSE HEAVY VEHICLES
0700-1000 2 2 6 1
1000-1200 10 4 12 3
1200-1400 10 4 12 4
1400-1600 10 4 8 4
1600-1800 2 1 6 1
1800-0700 0-2 0 0-6 0
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 9 of 20
2.2.4. Impact on Public Transport
The existing bus stop on Botany Road will be retained for the site establishment works. There will be disruptions to bus stop operations during the sewer works at night with the southbound bus stop being closed. This will be discussed and agreed with Sydney Buses prior to the works.
2.2.5. Impact on Pedestrians and Cyclists
Pedestrian management will be in place at the site entry/ exit points. During the implementation of lane closures there may be a requirement to divert pedestrians onto the opposite side of the road due to the proximity of the work areas. Where this occurs, pedestrians will be directed to use existing pedestrian facilities including signalised pedestrian crossings, where available or existing splitter islands associated with the roundabouts at the intersections of Wellington/ Cope and Cope/ Raglan streets.
2.2.6. Staff parking and transportation to site
During the site establishment works, it is anticipated that there will be 15-20 personnel on site. There will be limited car parking spaces (12#) on site during site establishment and the use of these spaces will be limited to essential staff or subcontractor vehicles. The workforce will be encouraged to arrive by site using public transport, with most likely to use Redfern Station, a 9 minute walk (650m) from site. All personnel will be informed that no parking is available within the local street system or on site.
2.2.7. Cumulative impacts
City of Sydney Council website does not have any major developments near the site. The Green Square redevelopment is approximately 1km south of the subject site.
2.2.8. Special Events
In reviewing City of Sydney Council’s website for special events near the site, there are no special events listed, which would be impacted by the works.
2.2.9. Traffic Control Plan (TCP) / Road Occupancy License (ROL) Identified Works
Works that have been identified as requiring a Traffic Control Plan are detailed below. Appendix 3 provides details on expected durations, timing for implementation, the works being undertaken and the expected traffic impacts.
1. Pedestrian management during access/ egress
2. Sewer works on Botany Road
2.2.10. Sydney City Council required approvals
Works that have been identified as requiring Council approval include:
1. Oversize and over mass vehicle movements (delivery of piling rigs)
2.2.11. Roads and Maritime required approvals
Works that have been identified as requiring specific RMS approval include:
1. Oversize and over mass vehicle movements (delivery of piling rigs)
2. Road opening on Botany Road (RMS Asset branch)
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 10 of 20
3. Fleet Management
Trucks to be used on the project will be compliant with NSW legislation and standards including the Heavy Vehicle National Legislation. All heavy vehicle operations will be conducted in accordance with the Chain of Responsibility (CoR) Management Plan (SMCSWTSE-JCG-TPW-HS-PLN-002164).
A combination of truck types will be used during the site establishment works. These trucks may be truck and dogs, bin trucks and 5t tippers
3.1. Haulage Routes
Generally, the haulage routes will be via arterial roads/ freeway or Tollway. Where possible the routes have taken into account the requirements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is noted that the EIS for this site access shows access via Botany Road with egress onto Botany Road, as one of the Primary Inbound, Primary Outbound routes. The routes within this CTMP are in accordance with the EIS.
Material will be removed from site using a combination of vehicles. These trucks will range in size from 5.5m to 19.0m and taken to authorised disposal sites around Sydney. Refer to Appendix 4 for details on the proposed routes.
3.2. Permits/ Over Dimensional Vehicles
Permit issue for vehicles greater than 45.5 tonnes is through the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR). This applies to particular special purpose vehicles (SPV) such as mobile cranes and other oversize/over mass vehicles (OSOM). At present, RMS is currently undertaking this permit issue.
For over dimensional vehicles, generally vehicles that are greater than 25m length or 3.5m width require a pilot(s). Extremely long or wide vehicles will require an escort (fee payable). Permits will be applied for by the transport operator.
Oversize vehicles will be required at this site for the delivery and removal of piling rigs. These deliveries will occur outside of peak hours and where required a lane closure on Botany Road will be implemented.
3.3. Drivers and Operators
Operator selection will be based on safety performance criteria. Operators and drivers will be required to have general construction industry induction cards and will be required to attend ongoing general project and site-specific inductions.
All operators will be comprehensively trained with regard to community expectations and impacts from haulage operations. The induction will have a particular focus on operator behaviour. Operator competency and standards of behaviour will be continually assessed, and discipline procedures will be put in place to maintain compliance.
Queuing of trucks in local streets around the sites will not occur as there will be sufficient designated area within site for trucks to wait. Trucks will arrive post the site start times.
4. Other Considerations
4.1. Road Safety Audits
Road safety audits will be undertaken during the development of the CTMP and upon implementation of the long-term work site. Refer to Appendix 5 for the audit report.
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 11 of 20
4.2. Weekly Traffic Forecast
A weekly traffic forecast is provided to local councils, RMS, Emergency Services, TfNSW, SCO and other stakeholders as requested. This forecast details the up and coming works and details of timings including hours of the day and dates of works that will impact traffic- road, public transport, pedestrians and cyclist.
4.3. Police and Emergency Services
The Police and relevant Emergency Services will be informed in a timely manner of relevant activities proposed within this CTMP. The initial communication to these stakeholders will be via the Traffic and Transport Liaison Group (TTLG). Regular updates will be provided to emergency services, including changes to road network configurations, changes to road conditions and worksite access locations, through emails and face to face discussions.
4.4. Communications and the community
The TSE will be responsible for the dissemination of information to the community including affected residents, relevant Councils, businesses and the public. Refer to Sydney Metro Community Consultation Strategy – Early Works.
Any enquiries, complaints and/ or compliments are to be directed to the TfNSW’s Sydney Metro Project Information line - 1800 171 386 or via email to: [email protected] or Sydney Metro City & Southwest, PO Box K659, Haymarket, NSW 1240 or Sydney Metro City & Southwest Website.
Table 2 provides the proposed communications to be implemented for this CTMP
Table 2 Proposed Communications
NOTIFICATION APPLICABLE
Community notice YES
Precinct update/ e-update YES
Email YES
Internet YES
On site briefings YES
Print advertising YES – Quarterly newsletter only
4.4.1. Travelling public
Where our works will impact on the travelling public we will undertake the following:
Public transport interruptions will be communicated via on site signage Motoring public will be forewarned of any changes, including road closures, road changes
and lane closures well in advance using appropriate signage, including variable messagesigns (VMS), where identified on the plans.
Pedestrians and cyclists will be provided with advance warning signs
4.4.2. Stakeholders consulted
Table 3 identifies the stakeholders consulted during the development of this CTMP:
Table 3: Stakeholder consultation
STAKEHOLDER DATE CONSULTATION MAIN CONTACT PEOPLE
TCG 24 Oct 2017 Meeting RMS/ CoS/ SCO/ TfNSW
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 12 of 20
STAKEHOLDER DATE CONSULTATION MAIN CONTACT PEOPLE
TTLG 26 Oct 2017 All members SCO/ TfNSW/ Councils/ ES/ RMS
RMS 28 Oct 2017 Submission of CTMP Shane Schneider
City of Sydney 28 Oct 2017 Submission of CTMP Mark Hannan
SCO 28 Oct 2017 Submission of CTMP Giovanny Ramirez/ Aaron Gale
TfNSW 28 Oct 2017 Submission of CTMP Berin Gordon
Centre for Road Safety 28 Oct 2017 Submission of CTMP Luke Wilby
TCG 14 Nov 2017 Meeting RMS/ CoS/ SCO/ TfNSW
RMS 22 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Shane Schneider
City of Sydney 22 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Mark Hannan
SCO 22 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Giovanny Ramirez/ Aaron Gale
TfNSW 23 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Berin Gordon
RMS 27 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Shane Schneider
City of Sydney 27 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Mark Hannan
SCO 27 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Giovanny Ramirez/ Aaron Gale
TfNSW 27 Nov 17 Resubmission of CTMP Berin Gordon
RMS 1 Dec 17 Resubmission of CTMP Shane Schneider
City of Sydney 1 Dec 17 Resubmission of CTMP Mark Hannan/ Tony Ly
SCO 1 Dec 17 Resubmission of CTMP Giovanny Ramirez/ Aaron Gale
TfNSW 1 Dec 17 Resubmission of CTMP Berin Gordon
4.5. Inspections and monitoring
The site will be monitored by the site supervisor. Any changes as noted in this CTMP, to signs/ lines that impact on the public will be monitored daily during site operating hours.
Traffic control used for pedestrian management, lane closures etc will need to provide records of the traffic control implemented. Any changes required to the traffic control set up will be authorised by a holder of an RMS “Prepare a Work Zone Traffic Management Plan” or equivalent.
4.6. Environmental Maintenance
All works will be undertaken in accordance with the TSE Construction Environmental Management Plan (SMCTSE-JCG-TPW-EM-PLN-002010) and associated sub plans including the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (SMCSTSE-JCG-TPW-EM-PLN-002012). The TSE Works are also regulated by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and works to be undertaken outside of standard construction hours will need to comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection License.
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 13 of 20
4.7. Site Contacts
Table 4: Site contacts
NAME POSITION CONTACT #
Tino Ferrero Construction Manager
Jason Julius Project Manager
Cameron Butcher Site Superintendent
Tim Marsh Safety Manager
Robert Muir Environment Operations
4.8. References
The following documents were used in the development of this CTMP:
Construction Traffic Management Framework – Tender version Principal’s General Specification G10 Traffic and Transport Management, v2.0 Roads and Maritime Service Traffic Control at Worksites Manual v 4.0 Relevant AustRoads Guides and RMS Supplements Sydney Metro Principal Contractor Health and Safety Standard
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 14 of 20
This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plot
ted
by11
/27/
2017
1:4
4 PM
SRAM
OS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATEREVIEWED - APPROVED
This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plot
ted
by11
/27/
2017
1:3
6 PM
SRAM
OS
CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATE
PRELIMINARY
SL/27.11.17ISSUED FOR INTERNAL REVIEW SL/27.11.27 SL/27.11.17A1
27.11.27SUE LEWIS
27.11.27SUE LEWIS
27.11.27SUE LEWIS
27.11.27SUE LEWIS
27.11.27SATURN RAMOS
-
-1
A1JCG-SWL-TM-DRG-002296-0003
1AUTOTURNWATERLOO - BOTANY ROAD WORK SITETRAFFIC MANAGEMENTWATERLOO STATION EXCAVATION AND PRECINTSYDNEY METRO CITY & SOUTHWEST
First Unit WidthTrailer WidthFirst Unit TrackTrailer Track
::
::
Steering AngleLock to Lock Time
::
metersTANDEM TIPPER + QUAD DOG
30.06.0
2.502.502.502.50
5.705.00
1.20
4.501.67 1.73
8.307.90
Articulating Angle 70.0:
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 16 of 20
Appendix 3 Traffic control plans
TCP # LOCATION FROM TO TIMING TRAFFIC CONTROL WORKS IMPACTS
0005-05 Raglan Street Botany Road
Cope Street Outside of peak periods
Kerbside lane closure including pedestrian detour to northern footpath
Service proving Parking lane to be used to separate traffic from the site. Existing parking restrictions will be temporarily removed during these works
0005-06 Cope Street Raglan Street
Wellington Street
Days/ nights
Kerbside lane closure including pedestrian detour to eastern footpath
Service proving
Noise wall construction
Parking lane to be used to separate traffic from the site. Existing unrestricted parking will be temporarily removed during these works
0005-07 Wellington Street
Botany Road
Cope Street Outside of peak periods
Kerbside lane closure including pedestrian detour to southern footpath
Service proving
Noise wall construction
Parking lane to be used to separate traffic from the site. Existing unrestricted parking will be temporarily removed during these works
TCP-SWL-BOT-SB-120003
Botany Road Raglan Street
Wellington Street
Outside of peak periods
Kerbside lane closure, maintaining bus stop and pedestrian movements
Plant delivery/ removal
Minimal impacts to traffic as taken outside of peak periods
Minimal impact to parking as the works occur at night, post the PM peak Clearway restrictions
TCP-SWL-BOT-SB-120005
Botany Road Raglan Street
Wellington Street
ALL Pedestrian management during site access/ egress
Truck access/ egress
Minimal impacts to traffic
Pedestrian activity low due to demolition of site
TCP-SWL-BOT-SB-120004
Botany Road Raglan Street
Wellington Street
Outside of peak periods
Kerbside (parking) lane closure adjusted to suit work area with pedestrian diversion in place
Plant delivery/ removal
Parking lane to be used to separate traffic from the site. Existing parking restrictions will be temporarily removed during these works. Pedestrian diversion, where required. Access to bus stop retained
JCG-SCN-TM-TCP-002296-0001-TCP
Botany Road Raglan Street
Wellington Street
Nights Contra flow Sewer works Southbound bus stop closed north of Wellington Street
Northbound bus stop to remain open
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 17 of 20
TCP # LOCATION FROM TO TIMING TRAFFIC CONTROL WORKS IMPACTS
Parking removed on both sides of Botany Road during the works.
JCG-SCN-TM-TCP-002296-0002-TCP
Botany Road Raglan Street
Wellington Street
Nights Contra flow Sewer works Southbound bus stop closed north of Wellington Street
Northbound bus stop to remain open
Parking removed on both sides of Botany Road during the works.
*Traffic control works shall be installed & maintained in accordance with A.S. 1742.3 (Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads) & RTA Traffic controlat Work Sites Manual Version 4 June 2010.
*Local constraints may not allow sign and devices to be placed exactlyin accordance withthe TCP, therefore it may be necessary to place sign and devices as close as possible to the spacing indicated.
*Signs should generally placed 1 metre clear of the travelled path.
*Signs are to be Class 1 retro-reflective (day/night)
Install as per TCP and in accordance with any changes as shown on TCP
700 MM TRAFFIC CONESWITH REFLECTIVE NIGHT STRIP WITH 220 MM SPACING
LEGEND
RAGLAN ST
HENDERSON ROAD
BUCKLAND ST
WELLIN
GTON ST
BO
TAN
Y RO
AD
BO
TAN
Y RO
AD
ROAD WORK
AHEAD
T1-1
T1-5-2 *
45M
45M
45M
T5-5
40
ROAD
WORK
R4-212
END
ROAD WORK
T2-16
86, BOTANY RD
BUS STOP REMAINS OPEN
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERASSIST PEDESTRIANSTO BUS STOP
RO
AD
WO
RK
ON
SIDE R
OA
D
T1-25
T1-5-2 *
15M
15MR
OA
D W
OR
K
ON
SID
E R
OA
D
T1-2
5
T1-5
-2 *
15M
15M
www.invarion.com
NOT TO SCALE
N
TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN
DATE: 17/11/2017
*Traffic control works shall be installed & maintained in accordance with A.S. 1742.3 (Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads) & RTA Traffic controlat Work Sites Manual Version 4 June 2010.
*Local constraints may not allow sign and devices to be placed exactlyin accordance withthe TCP, therefore it may be necessary to place sign and devices as close as possible to the spacing indicated.
*Signs should generally placed 1 metre clear of the travelled path.
*Signs are to be Class 1 retro-reflective (day/night)
Install as per TCP and in accordance with any changes as shown on TCP
*Traffic control works shall be installed & maintained in accordance with A.S. 1742.3 (Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads) & RTA Traffic controlat Work Sites Manual Version 4 June 2010.
*Local constraints may not allow sign and devices to be placed exactlyin accordance withthe TCP, therefore it may be necessary to place sign and devices as close as possible to the spacing indicated.
*Signs should generally placed 1 metre clear of the travelled path.
*Signs are to be Class 1 retro-reflective (day/night)
Install as per TCP and in accordance with any changes as shown on TCP
This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plot
ted
by11
/28/
2017
11:
30 A
MPT
ULLY
1
CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATE
PRELIMINARY
SLISSUED FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 20.11.17 PTA1
15.11.17SUE LEWIS
15.11.17SUE LEWIS
15.11.17SUE LEWIS
15.11.17SUE LEWIS
15.11.17PHIL TULLY
-
-2
A1JCG-SWL-TM-TCP-DRG-002296-0001
1TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANBOTANY ROADTRAFFIC MANAGEMENTWATERLOO STATION AND PRECINCTSYDNEY METRO CITY & SOUTHWEST
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: DRG No.STATUS:FILE No.DRAWNDESIGNEDDRG CHECKDESIGN CHECKAPPROVED OFSHEET:EDMS No.This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plotted by
11/28/2017 11:30 AM
PTULLY1CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATE PRELIMINARY
This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plot
ted
by11
/28/
2017
11:
31 A
MPT
ULLY
1
CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATE
PRELIMINARY
SL/20.11.17ISSUED FOR INTERNAL REVIEW SL/20.11.17 SL/20.11.17A1
12.11.17SUE LEWIS
12.11.17SUE LEWIS
12.11.17SUE LEWIS
12.11.17SUE LEWIS
12.11.17PHIL TULLY
-
-2
A1JCG-SWL-TM-TCP-DRG-002296-0002
2TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANBOTANY ROADTRAFFIC MANAGEMENTWATERLOO STATION AND PRECINCTSYDNEY METRO CITY & SOUTHWEST
CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: DRG No.STATUS:FILE No.DRAWNDESIGNEDDRG CHECKDESIGN CHECKAPPROVED OFSHEET:EDMS No.This drawing and the related information have been prepared by, or at the request of, Transport for NSW for a specificpurpose and may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose intended by Transport for NSW.Transport for NSW does not provide any warranties and accepts no liability arising out of the use of this drawing or anyof the related information for any purpose other than the intended purpose. This drawing is protected by copyrightand no part of this drawing may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Transport for NSW.CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM: HEIGHT DATUM: SCALE: Plotted by
11/28/2017 11:31 AM
PTULLY1CLIENTIC CERTIFIED - IC CERTIFICATE PRELIMINARY
REVIEWED - APPROVED
25m
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 18 of 20
Appendix 4 Haulage routes
DRAWING NUMBER DESCRIPTION
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-DWG-002296-0001 Haulage route – Waterloo to Eastern Distributor/ South Dowling Street
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-DWG-002296-0002 Haulage route – Eastern Distributor/ South Dowling Street to Waterloo
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-DWG-002296-0003 Haulage route –Western Distributor to Waterloo
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 19 of 20
Appendix 5 Road safety audit
RSA-06409
Page 1 of 5 Sydney Metro City and South West
Road Safety Audit Report SHORT FORMAT
Title Sydney Metro City and South West RSA P/L Reference RSA-06409 Sub-Title / Work Package Construction Traffic Management Plan
Waterloo (Botany Rd) Report Date 30 October 2017
Audit Stage Desktop Lead (Senior) Auditor Secondary Auditor / Reviewer
Peter Harris Chris Keramidas, Anthea Jennings
Client John Holland CPB Ghella
TMP / Drawings Construction Traffic Management Plan:
Report Provider Road Safety Audits P/L DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-02 Rev A DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-04 Rev C DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-05 to 07 Rev B 2016-2412A Rev 1 2016-2412 Rev 1 2016-2526 Rev 0
Scope: The scope of the audit is to assess the construction traffic management plans on their merits and in the context of the road environment, not compliance-checking to standards and guidelines.
RSA-06409
Page 2 of 5 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
1. General Pedestrians through the site are advised by signage for the detours and closures. However, pedestrians on the other side of the road might not know they are crossing to a work zone (it probably won’t look like a work zone for the whole length).
Ensure pedestrians can’t easily gain access to the work site area.
Accept Drawings removed
RSA-06409
Page 3 of 5 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
2. 2016-2412A and 2016-2412 There is no buffer shown between the merge and the work zone.
It is acknowledged that the speed limit through the section is 40km/h. Consider providing a short buffer.
Accept Drawings removed
3. 2016-2526
The ‘trucks turning’ (worded) sign is non-standard and made redundant by the symbolic sign.
Install the ‘100m on left’ sign underneath the symbolic sign.
Accept Drawings removed
4. 2016-2526 ‘Pedestrians watch your step’ is unlikely to be the correct warning message here.
Use a relevant sign / message or none at all.
Accept Drawings removed
5. 2016-2412 It’s unclear why pedestrians are being advised to ‘watch their step’ if they are being detoured around the work zone.
Omit this sign and add ‘detour’ / similar. Accept Drawings removed
RSA-06409
Page 4 of 5 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
6. 2016-2412 ‘Roadwork Ahead’ signs are shown on Raglan Street. However, there is no roadwork on Raglan Street.
Omit signs or replace with ‘on side road…’ type signs.
Accept Drawings removed
7. 2016-2412 Similar to the above point, the ‘end roadwork’ signs on Raglan Street are very remote from the work zone and are not required.
Omit signs. Accept Drawings removed
RSA-06409
Page 5 of 5 Sydney Metro City and South West
Explanatory Notes
Short Format: This ‘short format’ report has been used by RSA P/L since 2008, initiated through requests by clients to assist their processes, for ease with stakeholders, and for timeliness. It is typically confined in use to construction traffic management and typically for discrete packages of plans / areas and often for large projects with repetitious small audit sections. The use of this format assumes that the reader/s know what a road safety audit is and how to respond to it. Projects: Audit points are often raised in projects in relation to: 1. specific themes (e.g. the use of a safety barrier type), or 2. the treatment of particular locations. Once key issues have been initially raised, they will not necessarily be re-raised in future audits. This will depend on the issue, the RSA’s perception of the client’s assessment and understanding of the issue, and other factors. Therefore, discrete audits as part of a project should be read and actioned by a project representative who is familiar with the audit history. Responding: Although the client receiving the report does not have to agree to the audit findings/suggestions, the issues and associated risks should be carefully considered. A written response should be made to all of the audit findings raised, then signed off by the responsible person from the project team. X
Response: The responder should fully or partially accept / reject the audit point and the comment / suggestion (i.e. not merely the suggestion) Y
Status: The status of the issue as it sits with the Project. i.e. ‘actioned’, ‘closed’, ‘pending information / further guidance’. Language: 1. Note: RSA P/L does not typically use the Austroads risk rating method, mostly because it can only be applied to some points and therefore can skew the perceived risk of other
points, and also due to it being a highly subjective approach, giving the false impression of objectivity. 2. ‘Urgent’ / ‘High-Risk’: Needs immediate attention / changes as per RSA suggestion or similar. 3. ‘Recommend’ / ‘Serious’ / ‘Important’: Must be robustly reviewed. Most likely requires a change to avoid a high-risk road environment for one or more user groups. 4. ‘Should’ / ‘Suggest’ / ‘Significant’: Based on the view of the RSA team the suggestion should be done, but it concedes that there could be reasons why inaction or alternative
action is equally correct. Must be robustly reviewed by contractor and where relevant key traffic engineering project stakeholders. 5. ‘Review’ / ‘Consider’: RSA is raising an observation but has no strong opinion on the outcome and need for changes. Project should review because it’s not an immediate and
high risk and may not be immediately obvious to RSA the reasons for the practice / setup / behaviour. May need monitoring. 6. ‘Minor’: Typically a low road-safety consequence / compliance issues (to guidelines or plans) / administrative controls. Unlikely to increase risk of crash. 7. ‘Note’: Little or no road safety significance. Typically added to give a complete picture of the design, site, context, analysis, auditors understanding. Intent of Issues Listing Order: Audit points might be clustered according to location, theme, or time. When this is not done and the audit comprises an uncategorised list of points, the key issues are often discussed first. However, there is no official ordering of points, and they should all be read on their merits and on the basis of the language guide below. References: 1. Austroads Guide to Road Safety – Road Safety Audit – 2009, 2. AS 1742.3 – 2009, 3. RMS Traffic Control at Work Sites V. 4.0 (June 2010) Safe System: Austroads guidelines encourage practitioners to adopt safe system principles within design and within road safety audits. Safe system (roads) calls for a design to not allow serious injury and fatalities to occur for the expected road users and the typical crash types expected for that design type. This design-objective is considered within this road safety audit as a ‘good practice’ objective. However, a road safety audit by definition does not have the aim of checking ‘Safe System conformance’. Process and Quality: RSA P/L’s quality assurance process is based on its senior auditors having a rich experience base, but also utilises customised checklists designed for niche areas in traffic engineering/road design (e.g. safety barriers, pavement shaping, CBD traffic management), in conjunction with a four-layer audit process: 1. on-site inspection; 2. media and data capture and review; 3. specialist / second auditor input; and (where warranted) 4. secondary blinded reviews. Audit Coverage: The audit has attempted to balance the safety needs of all road users. As per Austroads guidelines, the suggestions provided have attempted to be realistic/feasible and commensurate with the actual risk posed. Suggestions are made are from a safety perspective only, and are made in the absence of full project knowledge and design constraints. RSA P/L can provide a detailed risk assessment / issue evaluation report upon request. The audit raises potential safety risks noted / observed / anticipated by the audit team, and in particular the higher-risk issues. However, a road safety audit is fundamentally a subjective qualitative process undertaken by people, highly influenced by the experience, views and limitations of the individual team members. It is expected that the project team has competence to identify safety issues itself as the project progresses, and to ask the audit team further questions where necessary.
RSA-06543
Page 1 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
SHORT FORMAT Road Safety Audit Report
Title Sydney Metro City and South West RSA P/L Reference RSA-06543 Sub-Title / Work Package Construction Traffic Management Plan
Waterloo Site Report Date 28 November 2017
Audit Stage Desktop Lead (Senior) Auditor Secondary Auditor / Reviewer
Scope: The scope of the audit is to assess the plans on their merits and in the context of the road environment, not compliance-checking to standards and guidelines.
RSA-06543
Page 2 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
1. JCG-SCN-TM-TCP-002296-0002: To traffic entering Botany Rd to head north, from the Wellington St / Raglan St intersection, it may be unclear which side of the bollards to travel (e.g. green arrow or red arrow). • Drivers may take the red arrow potentially head-on
into approaching traffic (blue arrow).
• Southbound Botany Rd drivers may deviate to the left, after the passing the road works (blue arrow) potentially into the path of approaching traffic.
1. Provide addition delineation (purple lines); and
2. Provide signage for northbound traffic to travel to the left of the bollards.
Important.
Accept drawings amended Closed
RSA-06543
Page 3 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
2. JCG-SCN-TM-TCP-002296-0001 and 2: There are a number of traffic controller warning signs that are either close or after the traffic controllers.
Review positioning of the signs. Drawings amended Closed
RSA-06543
Page 4 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
3. General: The road width is being narrowed in Raglan St Cope St and Wellington St. Drivers may cross the barrier line and head towards / into the oncoming lanes.
Ensure there is enough width for drivers to not need to cross the barrier line. Alternatively, make suitable arrangements.
Accept note added to drawing to maintain current lane widths
Closed
RSA-06543
Page 5 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
4. General: Pedestrian signage currently reads [ or Pedestrians]. This could be misunderstood to mean into the traffic lane by pedestrians.
Add “Use other footpath” for relevant signs.
Drawings amended Closed
5. DD-STDM-DWG-0005-05:
Roadwork ahead signage is missing from Henderson Rd, eastbound.
Add sign Reject as there is no roadwork on the eastbound carriageway
Closed
RSA-06543
Page 6 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
6. DD-STDM-DWG-0005-05: The “roadwork ahead” sign for traffic traveling westbound on Raglan St (blue) will not be visible for drivers turning from Cooper St.
Relocate the sign. Partially accept – note added to drawing
Closed
RSA-06543
Page 7 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion
John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:
Response
x Status
y Headers*****
7. DD-STDM-DWG-0005-05: The “roadwork ahead” signs on Cooper St are misleading as there is no roadwork on Cooper St.
Change to “roadwork on side road”. Accept drawing amended Closed
RSA-06543
Page 8 of 8 Sydney Metro City and South West
Explanatory Notes Short Format: This ‘short format’ report has been used by RSA P/L since 2008, initiated through requests by clients to assist their processes, for ease with stakeholders, and for timeliness. It is typically confined in use to construction traffic management and typically for discrete packages of plans / areas and often for large projects with repetitious small audit sections. The use of this format assumes that the reader/s know what a road safety audit is and how to respond to it. Projects: Audit points are often raised in projects in relation to: 1. specific themes (e.g. the use of a safety barrier type), or 2. the treatment of particular locations. Once key issues have been initially raised, they will not necessarily be re-raised in future audits. This will depend on the issue, the RSA’s perception of the client’s assessment and understanding of the issue, and other factors. Therefore, discrete audits as part of a project should be read and actioned by a project representative who is familiar with the audit history. Responding: Although the client receiving the report does not have to agree to the audit findings/suggestions, the issues and associated risks should be carefully considered. A written response should be made to all of the audit findings raised, then signed off by the responsible person from the project team. X
Response: The responder should fully or partially accept / reject the audit point and the comment / suggestion (i.e. not merely the suggestion) Y
Status: The status of the issue as it sits with the Project. i.e. ‘actioned’, ‘closed’, ‘pending information / further guidance’. Language: o Note: RSA P/L does not typically use the Austroads risk rating method, mostly because it can only be applied to some points and therefore can skew the perceived risk of other
points, and also due to it being a highly subjective approach, giving the false impression of objectivity.o ‘Urgent’ / ‘High-Risk’: Needs immediate attention / changes as per RSA suggestion or similar.o ‘Recommend’ / ‘Serious’ / ‘Important’: Must be robustly reviewed. Most likely requires a change to avoid a high-risk road environment for one or more user groups.o ‘Should’ / ‘Suggest’ / ‘Significant’: Based on the view of the RSA team the suggestion should be done, but it concedes that there could be reasons why inaction or alternative
action is equally correct. Must be robustly reviewed by contractor and where relevant key traffic engineering project stakeholders.o ‘Review’ / ‘Consider’: RSA is raising an observation but has no strong opinion on the outcome and need for changes. Project should review because it’s not an immediate and
high risk and may not be immediately obvious to RSA the reasons for the practice / setup / behaviour. May need monitoring.o ‘Minor’: Typically, a low road-safety consequence / compliance issues (to guidelines or plans) / administrative controls. Unlikely to increase risk of crash.o ‘Note’: Little or no road safety significance. Typically added to give a complete picture of the design, site, context, analysis, auditors understanding.Intent of Issues Listing Order: Audit points might be clustered according to location, theme, or time. When this is not done and the audit comprises an uncategorised list of points, the key issues are often discussed first. However, there is no official ordering of points, and they should all be read on their merits and on the basis of the language guide below. References: Construction: 1. Austroads Guide to Road Safety – Road Safety Audit – 2009, 2. AS 1742.3 – 2009, 3. Road Management Act 2004 – Code of Practice – Worksite Safety – Traffic Management (2010), and Design: 4. Austroads guidelines and VicRoads supplements and technical publications as relevant. Safe System: Austroads guidelines encourage practitioners to adopt safe system principles within design and within road safety audits. Safe system (roads) calls for a design to not allow serious injury and fatalities to occur for the expected road users and the typical crash types expected for that design type. This design-objective is considered within this road safety audit as a ‘good practice’ objective. However, a road safety audit by definition does not have the aim of checking ‘Safe System conformance’. Process and Quality: RSA P/L’s quality assurance process is based on its senior auditors having a rich experience base, but also utilises customised checklists designed for niche areas in traffic engineering/road design (e.g. safety barriers, pavement shaping, CBD traffic management), in conjunction with a four-layer audit process: 1. on-site inspection; 2. media and data capture and review; 3. specialist / second auditor input; and (where warranted) 4. secondary blinded reviews. Audit Coverage: The audit has attempted to balance the safety needs of all road users. As per Austroads guidelines, the suggestions provided have attempted to be realistic/feasible and commensurate with the actual risk posed. Suggestions are made are from a safety perspective only, and are made in the absence of full project knowledge and design constraints. RSA P/L can provide a detailed risk assessment / issue evaluation report upon request. The audit raises potential safety risks noted / observed / anticipated by the audit team, and in particular the higher-risk issues. However, a road safety audit is fundamentally a subjective qualitative process undertaken by people, highly influenced by the experience, views and limitations of the individual team members. It is expected that the project team has competence to identify safety issues itself as the project progresses, and to ask the audit team further questions where necessary.
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment
SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-PLN-002296Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment Page 20 of 20
Appendix 6 Review comments
Waterloo site establishment
Printed copies are uncontrolled Page 1 of 1
CTMP Review Comments Sheet Project Title Sydney Metro City & south west –Tunnels and station excavation contract
Reviewer: Centre for Road Safety – Luke Wilby Responder: S Lewis Date:1 November 2017 Date:18 November 2017
Item Section/ Page Comments Response
1 General There is still signage for pedestrians to “watch their step” Was unsure if this meant the footpath wasn’t being closed or it was an added contingency around the site entrance/exit if a pedestrian was to ignore the footpath closed sign?
Drawings revised with signs removed
2 Road safety audit As outlined in the road safety audit, should there be advanced warning that the bus stop is closed to deter pedestrians from attempting to access it?
Drawing removed
3 Lane closure What happens if a wedding/ funeral vehicle needs to access the church? And how will pedestrian access the church?
Access will be maintained
Waterloo site establishment
Printed copies are uncontrolled Page 1 of 4
CTMP Review Comments Sheet Project Title Sydney Metro City & south west –Tunnels and station excavation contract
Reviewer: City of Sydney Van Le Responder: S Lewis Date:10 November 2017 Date:18 November 2017
Item Section/ Page Comments Response
1 General Error! Reference source not found is referred to in the following sections of the report:
• Section 1.1• Section 2• Section 4.3.2
Document amended
2 2.1.2 “Unrestricted parking exists on both the northern and southern side of Wellington Street between Botany Road and Cope Street”.
Sections of the southern side of Wellington Street, between Botany Road and Cope Street, is signposted as Loading Zone and 2P permit parking
Document amended
3 2.1.3 “there are no other bus stop on Cope Street”
There is another Bus Stop on the eastern side of Cope Street, south of Raglan Street
Document amended
Waterloo site establishment
Printed copies are uncontrolled Page 2 of 4
Item Section/ Page Comments Response
4 2.1.4 “the existing footpaths are approximately 2m wide” and “the existing footpaths are approximately 3.7m wide with an effective pedestrian width of 2.8m”
Please clarify which statement for the width of the footpath is correct
Document amended
5 2.1.4 “There are no driveways on this section of Raglan Street”
There is a driveway on the southern side of Raglan Street between Botany Road and Cope Street
Document amended
6 2.2.1 “Driveway construction”
Section 2.2.2 of the report states that “The main access/ egress is proposed on Botany Road using existing driveways’ and as such there should no need for driveway construction for site establishment works
Document amended
7 2.2.9 “Construction of driveway on Botany Road and Raglan Street”
Section 2.2.2 of the report states that the “The main access/ egress is proposed on Botany Road using existing driveway and as such there should be no need for the construction of a driveway in Raglan Street
Document amended
8 2.2.10 “Construction of driveway on Botany Road and Raglan Street”
Section 2.2.2 of the report states that the “The main access/ egress is proposed on Botany Road using existing driveway and as such there should be no need for the construction of a driveway in Raglan Street
Document amended
Waterloo site establishment
Printed copies are uncontrolled Page 3 of 4
Item Section/ Page Comments Response
9 4.6 Contact number for the Site Superintendent is not provided
Document amended
10 DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-02 Section 3.1 states that “Material swill be removed from site using a combination of vehicles. There trucks will range in size from 5.5m to 19.0m and taken to authorised disposal sites around Sydney”. Swept path plans of the largest vehicle entering and exiting the site must be provided in the report.
Drawing amended
11 DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-04 The lane closure on the eastern side of Botany Road, north of Raglan Street, is excessive and would unnecessary remove parking and impact the Bus stop
Agree drawing replaced
12 DD-SYDM-DWG-0005-04 The report must specify how the Bus Stop on the eastern side of Botany Road, between Raglan and Wellington streets will be temporarily managed or relocated during the kerbside lane closure
Drawing removed
13 2016-2412A Section 2.2.2 of the report states that “The main access/ egress is proposed on Botany Road using existing driveways and as such there should be no need for driveway construction
Refer to revised document. This drawing has also been replaced
14 2016-2412 It is not clear what works are being carried out for this TCP/ The report must specific the works being carried out associated with this TCP
Refer to revised document. This drawing has also been replaced
15 SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-DWG-002296-0001
Construction truck routes must utilise State roads before using Regional roads and then local road. The construction truck route must turn right into Lachlan Street from Bourke Street to access South Dowling Street. Construction truck route must not continue north
Noted and drawing amended
Waterloo site establishment
Printed copies are uncontrolled Page 4 of 4
Item Section/ Page Comments Response
on Bourke Street past Lachlan Street
16 SMCSWTSE-JCG-SWL-TM-DWG-002296-0002
Construction truck routes must utilise State roads before using Regional roads and then local road. From South Dowling Street, the construction truck route must turn into Cleveland Street, left into Regent Street and continue onto Botany Road to access into the site. Construct truck route must not use Wyndham Street.
Noted and drawing amended
17 Appendix 5 The Road Safety Audit report specific to the works described in the CTMP must be attached to the report as in Appendix
1 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20171.1 Error message appears due to broken reference
link. Please fix.
Document amended
2 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20172 Error message appears due to broken reference
link. Please fix.
Document amended
3 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20172.2 Sewer works occupying the parking lane in
Botany Rd will be subject to ROL approval
Noted ‐ refer to change of traffic
control arrangement as discussed
at TCG held 14 Nov 2017
4 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
2.2.3 Can you provide detail of when the drill rigs will
be on site, and vehicle movements increase to
520 movements a month?
the vehicle movements will
increase once piling works
commence. Delivery of machinery
to site will be included with weekly
traffic forecast
5 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
Will the relocation of the bus stop as flagged in
TCG meetings be moved during this site
establishment phase? If so, please update to
include this detail
No requirement during site
establishment
6 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017Please ensure you consult with STA/SCO
regarding any overnight closures of the bus stop
during the sewer works
Noted and agreed
7 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20172.2.5 Suggest detailing the pedestrian management to
be in place for those not aware of the previous
arrangement
Document amended
8 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
2.2.6 Suggest amending last sentence to read 'All
personnel will be informed that no parking will
be available to them on site, with limited street
parking available subject to signposted
restrictions.'
No change to document as City of Sydney want it made quite clear to workers that parking in the surrounding street system is to be discouraged at all times
9 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
Can you provide some detail or indicative
schedule of when the piling rigs are to be
delivered
Unable to provide this within the document as these details will only be known once we have certainty of approval times. We will include details within the weekly Traffic Forecast were lane closures are required
10 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017Deliveries requiring a lane closure will require an
ROL and will be subject to approvalNoted and agreed
Stakeholder Comment TrackerSydney Metro City & Southwest
3.2
2.2.4
RESPONSE STATUSO OpenC Closed
11 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20173.3 Where are the designated holding areas for
trucks? Can you please include this information in
the text
Within site as noted into eh document given the room available.
12 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20174.1 Once available please include a copy of the RSA
for site establishment works and provide
reference to Appendix 5 in the text
Document amended
13 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20174.3 Are you able to include a table of indicative
communications to be used as part of this site
establishment phase?
Document amended
14 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20174.3.2 Error message appears due to broken reference
link. Please fix.Document amended
15 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-20174.6, Table 3 Contact details are missing for the site
superintendent ‐ please update the table to
include this
Document amended
16 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017Appendix 3,
Table of works
Suggest amending 'out of peak hours' on line 5 to
'outside of peak periods' for consistencyDocument amended
17 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
DWG‐0005‐04 Is a lane closure for the full length of Botany Rd
between Boundary St and Raglan St really
necessary?
This section of road is typically occupied with
parked vehicles and this lane closure would see a
significant loss of parking in the area.
Additionally, this will effect a bus stop/zone
which has not otherwise been identified in this
CTMP
drawing removed
18 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
DWG‐0005‐05 Will pedestrians still be able to use the signalised
pedestrian crossing on the eastern side of Botany
Rd, across Raglan St? Will the pram ramp be
accessible? And finally, how will you prevent
pedestrians accessing the work area?
Yes drawing amended
19 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
Will a footpath closure be required as part of
these works? If so, please detail the pedestrian
detour or alternatively specify how access will be
maintained.
Drawing replaced ‐pedestrian
management in place as per
Appendix 3
20 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
The 'Look up and live' sign and key identifies
overhead electrical power lines however these
have not been shown on the TCP, nor have any
such related works been indicated in the CTMP.
Please remove and update TCP or include detail
of works as appropriate.
Drawing replaced
21 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
2016‐2526 The 'Look up and live' sign and key identifies
overhead electrical power lines however these
have not been shown on the TCP, nor have any
such related works been indicated in the CTMP.
Please remove and update TCP or include detail
of works as appropriate.
Drawing replaced
22 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017
2016‐2412 The 'Look up and live' sign and key identifies
overhead electrical power lines however these
have not been shown on the TCP, nor have any
such related works been indicated in the CTMP.
Please remove and update TCP or include detail
of works as appropriate.
Drawing replaced
2016‐2412A
23 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017General ‐ TCPs Please ensure indicative spacing is provided for
all signs and cones, as well as signatures for the
reviewed by / approved by text box on all TCPs
Drawings amended
24 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO JB 09-Nov-2017Appendix 5 Please ensure the RSA is included in the revised
CTMPDocument amended
25 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO AG 14-Nov-2017Appendix 3 any footpath closures that divert pedestrians to
cross at unsignalised locations will require traffic
controllers
Crossing points are located at
existing pedestrian facilities.
Document: CTMP - Waterloo site - Site EstablishmentVersion: B-00Date of review: 30/10/2017
Both mention parking restrictions, but only intro references Appendix 1. No mention of Appendix 1 in Sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4
Section 2 states: "The existing parking restrictions at the site are detailed below and are also included in Appendix 1". Below section 2 sites Sections 2.11, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. No change to document required
5 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.1.2 Clarify which Council
Waterloo site is located within the City of Sydney LGA. This is known to the reviewers. No change to document required
6 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.1.3 Suggest information on buses, including impacts, be added to Section2.2.4
It is - no change to document required
7 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2"Duration 2 months". Is this the time to establish site? If so how long will site be in operation once it is set-up? Will there be any changes to site that differ from this CTMP?
It is the time to undertake the works detailed in Section 2.2.1 which is a subheading of Section 2.2. No change to document required
8 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.1 Mixing short and long term works can create confusion. Suggest clarifying what works occur when
Refer to Appendix 2 for long term set ups(Site Operations) and Appendix 3 for short term set ups (Traffic Control Plans)
9 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.2Is the movement based on a 5 day or 6 day week? IS it from only Botany Rd. Site establishment covers all access points/driveways?
Full work day - volumes will be less per half day of works
10 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.2 Provide clarity on "minimal truck numbers" Refer to Table 1 for movements during peak hours
Sydney Metro City & Southwest Stakeholder Comment Tracker
RESPONSE STATUSO OpenC Closed
11 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.4This section only deals with buses, can the heading be changed or is there other public transport that needs addressing?
This section is included in all CTMP and thus captures all forms of public transport. Your suggested change is immaterial to the information provided
12 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.4"…during sewer works at night" related to section 2.2.1? Again, mixing short and long term works can create confusion. Suggest clarifying what works occur when
Refer to Appendix 2 for long term set ups(Site Operations) and Appendix 3 for short term set ups (Traffic Control Plans). Section 2.2.4 is for Works required.
13 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.5 What was previously used? Reference TCPs in Appendix? Document amended
14 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.6 Clarify how many of the 15-20 will be able to park. Are they all "essential staff or subcontractor…"? Document amended
15 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.9 Point : is this once site is operational, so long term? Appendix 3 is not clear on time frames
Refer to Appendix 2 for long term set ups(Site Operations) and Appendix 3 for short term set ups (Traffic Control Plans). No change to document required
16 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 2.2.11 RMS also need to approve this CTMP.
Yes - this is not about the approval of the CTMP but licenses/ permits etc. No change to document required
17 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Table 1
Table needs clarity: -Are those movements in and out or just in? -Saturday is not mentioned -Average of 2 per hour, is there a peak where this will increase? -Is this just from Botany Rd access or Raglan St access?
Movements as noted in the EIS. Saturday is not mentioned in the EIS either. This is an average of movements during the works, as identified in the EIS. All from Botany Road
18 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 3.1 Title of Section is "logistics routes", text mentions haulage. Which is it? Is there a difference? Document amended
19 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 3.2Mention lane closure on Botany Rd for piling rig delivery. Update section with how? When? Any operational information?
Refer to Appendix 3. Details on lane closures occurring at site will be provided via the weekly Traffic Forecast
20 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 3.3Clarify what "operator selection will be based on safety performance criteria" means. What operators? What safety performance criteria?
Refer to Chain Of Responsibility Plan for TSE works
21 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 3.3Clarify what ""…comprehensively trained with regard to community expectations and impact from haulage operations." means
Refer to Chain Of Responsibility Plan for TSE works
22 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 3.3"Trucks will arrive post the site start times" Does this mean just trucks? What about light vehicles? Does site start time differ from construction hours?
This sentence is to provide readers with confirmation that trucks will not queue prior to site start times.
23 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.2 "…regular updates" How will this be achieved?Through TTLG, email out of Traffic Forecasts, direct communications with ES
24 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.3 Information in this section is general. What will actually be done for the sewer works and establishing site? Document amended
25 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.3.1 How does this section differ from 2.4.4? No detail provided on VMS messages or locations
No requirement for VMS as works are undertaken during lane closures which have been occurring on site since DELTA works commenced
26 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.3.2 Format error states "Error! Reference source not found" Document amended
27 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Table 2 Main contact for RMS is Anthony McMahon (for now) These are TCG attendees.
28 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.4Deals with short term inspections, not clear on long term inspections. How will CTMP be updated if changes are made?
Long term inspections undertaken in accordance with TCAWS requirements
29 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Section 4.5 This section does not give any detail on how environmental maintenance will be undertaken. Refer to CEMP
Drawing states "bus zone affected by construction swept paths". This issue is not covered in Section 2.2.4. Section 2.2.4 states: "The existing bus stop on Botany Rd will be retained…" Clarify
Drawing states that bus stop is NOT affected by swept paths
32 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Notes on TCP reference TCP 100 which is a two of three lane closure TCP. None of the TCPs are for this situation Drawings amended
33 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017Notes on TCP reference sections of AS1742.3 and TCAWs which is great but how will the person installing the TCP be able to obtain this information while out on the road?
Drawings amended
34 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 TCPs are not signed (5.1.2 of TC@Ws Manual). Drawings amended
35 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017TCPs should not be drawn on aerials photographs, see TC@AWS Appendix D. The aerial does lack clarity when trying to establish lanes closed
there is no mention of this requirement in Appendix D. No change proposed
36 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 What is the worksite protection method/device?Reduced speed limit, bollards, traffic controllers as noted on the drawings
37 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017
Some of the TCPs were drawn for Delta by a subcontractor. Does JHCPBG JV plan to take responsibility of TCPs drawn for others? Will Lack Group (who drew the TCPs) be installing them?
Drawing amended
38 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-201740 ROADOWRK speed signs should be duplicated (both sides of the road at the start of the speed zone (TCAWs Section 8.2.5)
TCAWS notes that If not physically possible then another sign should be located 0.5D from the start of the zone
39 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Titled DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-04 should be 003? As next TCP is also 004 Drawing replaced
41 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 How will bus stop opposite Boundary St will be managed? Drawing replaced
42 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 There is parking along this section of road. Will spaces be reserved? How will trapped cars exit? Drawing replaced
43 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 The speed reduction should start before the taper as per TCP 57 in TCAWs Drawing replaced
44 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017T1-5 sign in top right corner may cause confusion, consider repositioning the drawing's cut line or the sign face on the drawing
Drawing replaced
45 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 How will bus stop just north of Raglan/Henderson intersection will be managed? Drawing replaced
46 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Why is there a 60 speed sign north of Raglan St facing NB traffic? This is a SB, one way only section of road Drawing replaced
47 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider traffic controllers at each end of the closure to manage pedestrians. There are pubs at both ends. Drawing replaced
48 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Bus stop is closed, what is the alternative? Drawing replaced
49 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Workmen signs are not installed on Henderson Rd EB or Regent St SB
The lane closure is on the southern side of Raglan Street hence neither of these directions noted are impacted by the works
50 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Speed signs are not installed on Raglan St EB Drawing amended
51 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 There is parking along this section of road. Will spaces be reserved? How will trapped cars exit? Under traffic control
52 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017TCP shows the pedestrian crossing on eastern side of Botany Rd, across Raglan St, as closed. Can it be left open?
Drawing amended
53 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider traffic controllers at each end of the closure to manage pedestrians. There is a pub opposite.
Traffic controllers will roam area once initial set up installed
54 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Why is sign spacing on Raglan St and Cope St at 40m not 50m? Drawing amended
55 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider additional 40 ROADWORK mid way along worksite
Drawing amended - no requirement for speed zone for this lane closure
56 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 There is parking along this section of road. Will spaces be reserved? How will trapped cars exit? Refer to response to Item 51
DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-04
DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-04
(should be 003?)
DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-05
57 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider additional 40 ROADWORK mid way along worksite Drawing amended
58 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider traffic controllers at each end of the closure to manage pedestrians. There are pubs at both ends Refer to response to Item 53
59 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 What lane width will be provided EB along Wellington St existign traffic lane
60 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-201750 speed sign WB on Wellington at intersection with Botany. This sign may create confusion as Botany Rd is 60km/hr.
Drawing amended
61 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Consider traffic controllers at each end of the closure to manage pedestrians. There is a pub opposite. Refer to response to Item 53
62 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Suggest separating the 40ROADWORK and WORKMEN signs as well as the END ROADOWRK and 50 speed sign Drawing replaced
64 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 What role are the two traffic controllers, to the south of the work, undertaking? Drawing replaced
65 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Is the "Look up and live sign" required on a TCP? Drawing replaced
66 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017There is a pedestrian crossing, as part of the signals, on the western side of the intersection of Botany Rd, Raglan St and Henderson Rd
Drawing replaced
67 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017TCP shows a total of 45m from work site to Raglan St, is this correct? If so TCP 2016-2526 cant not be undertaken. Clarify
Drawing replaced
68 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017
How will the footpath be closed? Is this what the TCs are doing? Where are the signs installed? How is the footpath closed at Wellington St as it appears to be a long way from the work site, people may walk through.
Drawing replaced
69 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017
This TCP is set-up for a slow lane closure SB. TCP DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-04 (should be 003?) is also set-up for the same closure, yet both start in different places, with different signs. Clarify
Drawing replaced
70 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Suggest separating the 40ROADWORK and WORKMEN signs as well as the END ROADOWRK and 50 speed sign Drawing replaced
72 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 What role are the two traffic controllers, to the south of the work, undertaking? Drawing replaced
73 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Is the "Look up and live sign" required on a TCP? Drawing replaced
74 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017There is a pedestrian crossing, as part of the signals, on the western side of the intersection of Botany Rd, Raglan St and Henderson Rd
Drawing replaced
75 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017TCP shows a total of 45m from work site to Raglan St, is this correct? IF so TCP 2016-2526 cant not be undertaken. Clarify
Drawing replaced
76 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017
This TCP is set-up for a slow lane closure SB. TCP DD_SYDM-DWG-0005-04 (should be 003?) is also set-up for the same closure, yet both start in different places, with different signs. Clarify
Drawing 0005-04 removed
77 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 TRUCK TURNING sign has been superseded Drawing replaced
79 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 How will one traffic controller stop and hold two sides of the driveway? Drawing replaced
80 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-20172016-2412 and 2016-2412A shows a total of 45m from work site to Raglan St, is this correct? Is so, this TCP cannot be undertaken. Clarify
Drawing replaced
81 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 30-Oct-2017 Appendix 4 Is the grey route on the Google map a secondary route or a remnant?
No it is a remnant and there is no way to turn this off. The route is clearly stated in text under the map
Plan No.2016-2412A
Plan No. 2016-2526
Document: CTMP - Waterloo Site EstablishmentVersion: B-00Date of review: 1/11/2017
Item No Contract Contractor Doc Rev Requirement Ref (COA or REMM) Stakeholder Reviewer Date Item Description,
1 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 1.1 "Figure 1Error! Reference source not found." Reference to be corrected. Document amended
2 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 Section 2 "Figure 2Error! Reference source not found." Reference to be corrected. Document amended
3 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.1
"The current parking restrictions will be retained along the site frontages." - Several TCPs show kerbside lane closures across the site frontages. The table in Appendix 3 indicates parking lanes are to be used and "Existing parking restrictions (or unrestricted parking) will be temporarily removed during these works". This should be discussed in the body of the CTMP, not just the appendix.
These are short term impacts. The section that you are referencing is about long term impacts
4 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.2
"The main access/egress is proposed on Botany Road…" Is there any other access/egress apart from this one? If so, then discussion regarding other accesses should be included. If not, then there is no need to refer to this one as the "main" access/egress.
Document amended
5 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.2"There will be minimal truck numbers during the peak periods (AM and PM)." This is a generic statement. Give specific numbers for the site specific CTMP.
refer to Table 1 for details on peak period movements
6 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.4What type of disruption to bus stop operation is expected? Will there be a closure of the bus stop? If so, how long and how often?
refer to Appendix 3
7 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.9"Appendix 3 provides details on expected durations…" There are no details of expected durations or dates related to the works being undertaken.
This will be provided via the weekly Traffic Forecast
8 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 2.2.9 and 2.2.10
"Construction of driveways on Botany Road and Raglan Street" - What is the purpose and function of the driveway proposed on Raglan Street. This has not been discussed in the CTMP.
Document amended
9 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 4.3 This information is suitable for an overall TMP, but more detail is required for the site specific TMPs. Document amended
10 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 4.3.2 "Table 2Error! Reference source not found." Reference to be corrected. Document amended
11 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 4.6, Table 3 Contact number missing for Cameron Butcher Document amended
12 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 2 No access/egress drawings for Raglan Street driveway mentioned in 2.2.9 and 2.2.10 Refer to response to Item 8
13 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3 DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 1) - Length missing between 'kerbside lane closed' symbolic sign and taper. Drawing removed
14 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 1) -If T1-5 sign is referring to the sign on Sheet 2, then it should be removed from Sheet 1 to avoid any misinterpretation or confusion.
Drawing removed
Stakeholder Comment TrackerSydney Metro City & Southwest
RESPONSE STATUSO OpenC ClosedCS Closed subject to additional action / information
15 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3
DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 1) - There is a bus stop on Botany Road across from Boundary Street, which is not shown in this plan. How will bus activity at this location be managed during this time?
Drawing removed
16 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3
DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 2) shows 'Bus Stop Closed'. There is also a bus stop on Botany Road, north of Raglan Street in the southbound direction, which is not shown in this plan. How will bus activity at these locations be managed during this time?
Drawing removed
17 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3
DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 2), 05, 06 and 07 show works area over kerbside along site frontage, resulting in the closure of the corresponding parking lanes. No discussion of approvals to remove parking has been included in this CTMP.
These are short term impacts at night as noted in the Table associated with Appendix 3
18 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3
DWG-0005-04 (Sheet 2) - TCP shows '60 speed limit' signs on Botany Road facing northbound traffic, north of Raglan/Henderson intersection. Botany Road is only southbound at this location.
Drawing removed
19 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3DWG-0005-06 - '40 speed limit' signs should be '40 roadwork' signs on the approach to site area, as per other TCPs speed limits removed from this drawing
20 TSE JHCPBG B-00 CM 01-Nov-2017 App 3 2016-24412A - What is the function of the three traffic controllers shown in the plan? Drawing removed
Document: CTMP - Waterloo Site EstablishmentVersion: EDate of review: 30/11/2017
Item No Contract Contractor Doc Rev Requirement Ref (COA or REMM) Stakeholder Reviewer Date Item Description,
1 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 2.1.1CHANGED FROM REV B-00End of page 5 is repeated at the start of page 6 from "A heritage mail box…"
Document amended
2 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 2.2.4
PREVIOUS RMS COMMENT:What type of disrutption to bus stop operation is expected? Will there be a closure of the bus stop? If so, how long and how often?
CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE:refer to Appendix 3
RMS REVISED RESPONSE:Although the information appears in Appendix 3, details should be discussed here in the "Impact on Public Transport" section.
it was:"The existing bus stop on Botany Road will be retained for the site establishment works. There will be disruptions to bus stop operations during the sewer works at night with the southbound bus stop being closed".
3 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 2.2.5
No discussion of pedestrian detours to be implemented as shown in several TCPs. Although the information appears in Appendix 3, details should be discussed here in the "Impact on Pedestrians and Cyclists" section.
Document amended
4 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 2.2.9
PREVIOUS RMS COMMENT:'"Appendix 3 provides details on expected durations…" There are no details of expected durations or dates related to the works being undertaken.
CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE:This will be provided via the weekly Traffic Forecast
REVISED RMS COMMENT:If this is the case, this should be stated in the CTMP. Further, the reference indicating that expected durations can be found in Appendix 3 should be removed.
Document amended
5 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 4.3.1
"… including variable message signs (VMS)." No plans for VMS signs are shown in this CTMP. If no VMS are to be used, then this remark should be removed from this section. Document amended
6 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 App 2NEW DRAWINGTitle above reviewer and approver is illegible Drawings amended
7 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 App 3
DWG-0005-04 - DRAWING DELETEDHow is the work that was previously proposed under this drawing now going to be undertaken?
There was no requirement for this TCP
Stakeholder Comment TrackerSydney Metro City & Southwest
RESPONSE STATUSO OpenC ClosedCS Closed subject to additional action / information
8 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 App 3
NEW DRAWING, ISSUE PREVIOUSLY RAISEDTCP-SWL-BOT-SB-120003 and 120004 - There is a bus stop on Botany Road, north of Raglan Street in the southbound direction (within the 60m merge taper), which is not shown in this plan. How will bus activity at these locations be managed during this time?
Drawings amended
9 TSE JHCPBG E RMS CM 30-Nov-2017 App 3
NEW DRAWINGTCP-DRG-002296-0001 (Sheet 1 and 2) - No spacings are shown between 'Traffic Controller' symbolic sign and traffic controller.
Drawings amended
Register No. Issued to: Date of IssueRegister No.1 XXXRegister No.2 XXXRegister No.3 XXX
HBI Healthy Buildings International Pty Ltd A.C.N. 003 270 693 A.B.N. 39 003 270 693
Mr Stuart Hodgson 18 December 2017 Director Program Sustainability Environment & Planning Sydney Metro Transport for NSW PO Box K659 HAYMARKET NSW 1240 Ref: TSE CTMP WL Site Est.
Dear Stuart
RE: Endorsement of Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment: Sydney Metro City & Southwest – TSE Works Reference is made to the following documents required by the Condition of Approval E82 of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest project (SSI – 15_7400 January 9 2017) and submitted to the Environmental Representative (ER) for review and endorsement:
Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment: Sydney Metro City & Southwest, TSE Works (Document SMCSWTSE‐JCG‐SWL‐TM‐PLN‐002296 Revision F dated 1 December 2017).
Email from the Sydney Coordination office dated 14 December 2017 stating “In accordance with Schedule C1 Appendix A.9 Section 2.1 ( c ) and 2.2 ( c ) of the Principal’s General Specifications G10 – Traffic and Transport Management and Minister’s Condition of Approval E82 for the Sydney Metro City & South West the Roads and Maritime Service of NSW and the Sydney Coordination Office approve the Sydney Metro City & South West Construction Traffic Management Plan – Waterloo Site Establishment - TSE Works Rev F SMCSWTSE-JCGSWL-TM-PLN-002296 for site establishment”.
The Roads and Maritime Service of NSW and the Sydney Coordination Office approval above is conditional on the following requirements:
Obtaining Road Occupancy Licences (ROLs) from the Transport Management Centre (TMC) as required;
Obtaining an approved hoarding installation certificate from city of Sydney Council;
Complying with haulage routes as approved by SCO/RMS and described in Appendix 4 of the CTMP;
Addressing any issues raised by Council, STA, Taxi Council, residents/ businesses, Emergency Services in the CTMP approval process;
Addressing any safety issues identified in the Road Safety Audit review of this CTMP;
The Construction Traffic Management Plan being updated as required prior to construction commencing to ensure consistency with the final Construction Traffic Management Framework when it is approved
Promptly addressing any CBD Taskforce and/or TMC and/or RMS issue that eventuates during the works.
As an approved ER for the Sydney Metro City & Southwest project, I have reviewed the above documents. The review did not comprise a technical review, as the ERs are not traffic experts and have relied on the SCO RMS Approval for technical aspects of the Plan. It is noted the document provides review comments and responses in Appendix 6. It is considered that the plan is consistent with Condition E82 of the Project Approval subject to the above conditions being complied with and is endorsed in accordance with Condition A24(d) of the Infrastructure Approval. Yours sincerely
Michael Woolley Environmental Representative – Sydney Metro – City and South West