JUNCTION 12A BALCOMBE ROAD/STEERS LANE
ROAD SAFETY AUDITRESPONSE REPORT
PERSIMMON HOMES & TAYLOR WIMPEY
March 2016
JUNCTION 12A BALCOMBE ROAD/STEERS LANE
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT RESPONSE REPORT
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1
G:\workfiles\T261\REPORTS\T261-DOC12\T261-DOC12 Stage 1.docx
March 2016
JUNCTION 12A BALCOMBE ROAD/STEERS LANE
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT RESPONSE REPORT
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Job No / T261File Reference / G:\workfiles\T261\REPORTS\T261-DOC12\T261-DOC12 Stage 1.docx
Name / Date / Initials
Prepared By / Ross Ingram / 29/03/2016 / RI
Checked By / Chris Isherwood / 29/03/2016 / CI
Issue / Date / Comments / Approved
Issue 1 / 29/03/2016 / CI
Chris Isherwood
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.INTRODUCTION...... 1
2.KEY PERSONNEL...... 1
3.RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RAISED...... 3
1
G:\workfiles\T261\REPORTS\T261-DOC12\T261-DOC12 Stage 1.docx
March 2016
JUNCTION 12A BALCOMBE ROAD/STEERS LANE
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT RESPONSE REPORT
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1.This Road Safety Audit Response Report has been produced by PFA Consulting and responds to the problems andrecommendations raised in the Stage 1Road Safety Audit Report prepared by M B Projects Ltd. (Reference No. 116.060 dated March 2016).
1.2.The Stage 1Road Safety Audit Report concerns an audit of the proposed off-site highway improvements associated with the Crawley NES residential development.
1.3.M B Projects Ltd was instructed to undertake a Stage 1Road Safety Audit in respect of the details prepared for the highway improvement scheme.
1.4.The Design Team have carefully considered the problems and recommendations in the Stage1 Road Safety Audit Report.This Road Safety Audit Response Reportincludes all of the problems and recommendations raised by the Road Safety Audit Team, as well as the Design Team’sresponse to these issues.
2.KEY PERSONNEL
2.1.Overseeing Organisation: West Sussex County Council (The Highway Authority)
2.2.Road Safety Audit Team:
Audit Team Leader - Martin Brownsey (Director M. B. Projects)
Audit Team Member - Ted Smith(Traffic Safety Consultant)
2.3.Details of representatives from the Design Team who prepared this Road Safety Audit Response Report are:
Design Team Leader –Ross Ingram (PFA Consulting)
Design Team Director – Chris Isherwood (PFA Consulting)
3.RESPONSES TO PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RAISED
3.1.GENERAL
Problem:2.1.1
Location:A (drawing T261/99A) – Junction 12A
Summary:Risk of hazardous surface water conditions
No surface drainage information is provided at this stage 1. Surface water passing pedestrian crossing points or present at turning/braking points can be hazardous.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that gullies may need to be installed to prevent surface water running down into the fourth arm area and across crossing points.
Design Team Response:
Agreed. Drainage to be dealt with during the detailed design stage.
3.2.LOCAL ALIGNMENT
Problem:2.2.1
Location:B (drawing T261/99A) – Side arm site access
Summary:Risk of rear shunts.
A short distance into the site there is a T-junction with side road off to the south. Vehicles queuing back from the signals may prevent an incoming vehicle from turning right. Rear shunts or queuing back out on to Balcombe Road could result.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a ‘Keep Clear’ marking is provided at this junction. The location of the internal junction should be reviewed to see if it can be moved further into the site.
Design Team Response:
Agreed. The proposal is to use “Keep Clear” markings.
Problem:2.3.2
Location:C (drawing T261/99A) – Junction 12A
Summary:Risk of confusion at right turn
The right turn from Balcombe Road northbound into the site is proposed with ‘an indicative arrow’ whereas the right turn from Balcombe Road southbound into Steers Lane is a separate phase. Drivers may not be aware of this difference such that they could make the right turn into the site assuming they had priority, and collide with a southbound vehicle. This problem is exacerbated by the 40mph speed limit compared with a more urban layout at 30mph.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the exact operation including design and location of signal heads is checked at this stage in order to assess this problem.
Design Team Response:
Recommendation noted. Turning movements/junction operations checked and design satisfactory. Signal head positions to be verified at detailed design. Separately, Balcombe Road is subject of a 30mph speed review upon completion all the new junctions affecting the road which may lead to a permanent introduction of a 30mph limit.
Problem:2.3.3
Location:D (drawing T261/99A) – Steers Lane junction
Summary:Risk of inadequate space for right turning HGV
The existing traffic islands are being retained at the Steers Lane junction although now a right turn into Steers Lane needs to be accommodated. It is not clear whether a large vehicle will be able to perform this without over-running the islands.
RECOMMENDATIONIt is recommended that swept path modelling of a large vehicle is undertaken to check junction geometry, with islands being relocated if found necessary.
Design Team Response:
Agreed. Swept path for large vehicles has been checked and can adequately clear the traffic islands. The right turn ban did not give rise to a restriction in the geometric layout hence the as-constructed layout, accommodates the right turn for large vehicles.
3.3.NON-MOTOR VEHICLE PROBLEM
Problem:2.4.1
Location:E (drawing T261/99A) – Site access road
Summary:Ensuring safe cycle routing
A shared footway/cycleway is indicated along the east side of Balcombe Road between the 2 junctions. At the east end of this route cyclists will need to be able to safely join and leave.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Designer reviews cycle routing in this area.
Design Team Response:
Agreed. Cycle strategy to be reviewed as part of masterplan for area east of Balcombe Road.
3.5SIGNS AND LIGHTING
No proposed signage indicated at this stage 1.
1 of 3G:\workfiles\T261\REPORTS\T261-DOC12\T261-DOC12 Stage 1.docx
March 2016