Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: CHIGWELL LANE A1168 M11 MOTORWAY M11 District: EPPING Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 8
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Chigwell Lane
M11 Off-slip
M11
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Chigwell Lane A1168 jw M11 Northbound Off-slip Grid Reference 544308 - 195621 Speed Limit 40 Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Dual Gradient None Traffic Management / Advanced directional sign and ‘End of Motorway‘ signs on off-slip, Give Existing Traffic Way signs and carriageway markings at junction. Calming Utilities Present Unknown Existing TRO’s 40mph speed restriction. No U-turn Road Surface SCRIM Data (WIP): Good Condition Signing 40 roundel signs, No Entry signing at end of Off-slip Road Markings Clear and appropriate Visibility Good forward visibility to junction with off-slip Vegetation Vegetation within Off-slip embankment Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 2 3 1 2 5
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles exiting the Off-slip 0 2 2 0 2 4 failing to give way at the junctions and colliding with northbound road users on Chigwell Lane.
Page 2 of 9
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Chigwell Ln northbound approach Image 2 – M11 Off slip approach
Image 3 – View from Off-slip junction 1 Image 4 – View from Off-slip junction 2
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this junction shows a pattern of vehicles failing to Give Way at the junction of the M11 Off-slip and Chigwell Lane (A1168). To encourage lower approach speeds on the Off-slip, it is proposed to increase the length of and widen the centre hatching separating the two lanes of the slip road. This will reduce the width of the running lanes and encourage caution on the approach. To reduce the masking of vehicles waiting at the junction for northbound traffic on Chigwell Lane, it is proposed to reduce the northbound section of Chigwell Lane to a single carriageway. The appropriate advanced signing will be deployed on the northbound approach to the junction to the south of the M11 over-bridge.
Page 3 of 9 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total scheme Design and Construction £21500.00
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Page 4 of 9
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,066,732 £235,791 £24,887 Collisions treated 0 2 2 Casualties treated 0 2 4 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £21,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 41
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 257 %FYRR slight 27
Total % FYRR 284
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.64 or 0.47 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.46 or 0.70 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % Failure to give way at Reduce northbound 21500.00 41 junction. section of Chigwell Lane to single carriageway.
Page 5 of 9 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date: 08/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other Yes No planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 6 of 9 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which works’ Yes No If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
(SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which works’ Yes No If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Susan Anker Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 7 of 9 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 9 Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A113 ABRIDGE ROAD JNCT WITH ENTRANCE TO VIRGIN ACTIVE District: EPPING Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 13
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A113
M11
Chigwell Lane
Page 1 of 8 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A113 ABRIDGE ROAD JNCT WITH ENTRANCE TO VIRGIN ACTIVE Grid Reference 545126 - 195491 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient None Traffic Management / Centre line and edge of carriageway markings at the access. Traffic island Existing Traffic and centre hatching to the southwest. Calming Utilities Present Unknown Existing TRO’s None SCRIM Data (WIP): Deficiencies
Road Surface
Signing none Road Markings Visible and appropriate Visibility Forward visibility of the access is limited by vegetation in north verge. Vegetation Vegetation within in north verge obscuring inter-visibility Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Page 2 of 8
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 1 2 1 2 5
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pattern of vehicles exiting the 1 1 2 1 2 5 Health Club access into the path of approaching traffic on the A113 Abridge Road
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Abridge Road northeast bound Image 2 – View to right from access approach to access
Image 3 – Abridge Road southwest bound approach to access
Page 3 of 8 5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this location shows a pattern of vehicles exiting the access and colliding with northeast bound traffic on Abridge Road (A113). To provide improved inter-visibility between approaching vehicles and vehicles exiting the access by cutting back the overhanging vegetation. It is also proposed to improve the conspicuity of the access by providing centre hatching and leave a gap at the junction with the access. An alternative solution is to widen the carriageway sufficiently to allow the give way to be brought forward and provide improved inter- visibility.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total scheme Design and Construction £7000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 34%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Page 4 of 8
Appendix A: FYRR
NA – design only
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % Vehicles turning out of access. Vegetation clearance and 7000 41 centre hatching or (design carraigeway widening. only)
Page 5 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: As well as the recommendations given, please can we make sure that the huge illegal signs that are on the public highway are also removed. It is illegal advertising. Otherwise it is pointless us carrying out our works if the establishment do not know they can not place anything on the public highway.
Comments provided by: Date: 8/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 8 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Susan Anker Date: 1/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 7 of 8 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: TWO GATES TYLERS ROAD LOCATION 500 METRES WEST OF JUNCTION WITH B181 District: EPPING Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 41
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Roydon Hamlet
Tylers Road
Page 1 of 7 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations TWO GATES TYLERS ROAD LOCATION 500 METRES WEST OF Road Name (s) JUNCTION WITH B181 Grid Reference 541728 - 207389 Speed Limit 40 Street Lit No Carriageway type Single Gradient None Traffic Management / Centre line and edge of carriageway markings on approaches to bend. Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Unknown Existing TRO’s None Road Surface SCRIM Data (WIP): None available. To be requested Signing Bend warning and Horse warning signs on southwest approach to bends. Road Markings Visible and appropriate. Edge of carriageway marking are worn in places. Visibility Forward visibility of the bend is good. Vegetation none Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 1 2 1 2 4
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pattern of westbound traffic 0 1 2 0 2 4 losing control on the bend.
Page 2 of 7
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Tylers Road - southwest bound Image 2 – Tylers Road - southwest bound start approach to bend. of bend.
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this location shows a pattern of southwest bound vehicles losing control on the bend and colliding either with an adjacent hedge of with oncoming traffic. To highlight the bend and it’s severity it is proposed to provide an Enhanced Bend Ahead/Horses warning sign on a Yellow Backing with an adjacent SLOW marking. It is also proposed to provide single chevrons signs to the front of the hedge on the bend (as per image 2). SCRIM data is to be requested for the westbound approach and, depending on the results, re-surfacing may be required.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total scheme Design and Construction £15500.00
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration NA
Page 3 of 7 9.0 Sc heme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,066,732 £235,791 £24,887 Collisions treated 0 1 2 Casualties treated 0 2 4 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £15,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 41
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 178 %FYRR slight 38 Total % FYRR 216
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.23 or 0.35 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.46 or 0.70 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % Vehicles losing control on bend Enhanced warning sign 15500 41 and single chevron signs to denote bend.
Page 4 of 7 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: No objections in principle, however I would raise a couple of questions. Why are we enhancing signage when cause of the problem could be carriageway surface, without a scrim test how are we to know? Is there even enough room for the signs on to be enhanced?
Comments provided by: Date: 8/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] n
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 5 of 7 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date: 1/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 7 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A414 jw BLAKE HALL RD, LOWER BOBBINGWORTH GREEN District: EPPING Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 77
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A414
Blake Hall Road
A414
Blake Hall Road
North Weald
Page 1 of 8 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A414 jw BLAKE HALL RD, LOWER BOBBINGWORTH GREEN Grid Reference 552470 - 205090 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit No Carriageway type Single Gradient Eastbound downward, not steep The eastbound approach has warning centre line (6+3) and edge of Traffic carriageway markings on approach. There are Vehicle Activated Signs Management / (VAS) on both the eastbound and westbound approaches, together with Existing Traffic Cross Roads Ahead (Diag. 504.1) with a Reduce Speed Now (Diag. 511) Calming on a yellow backing boards. There is also advanced directional signing. Utilities Present Unknown Existing TRO’s None SCRIM Data (WIP): Deficiencies
Road Surface
There are Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) on the both A414 approaches together with Cross Roads Ahead (Diag. 504.1) with a Reduce Speed Now Signing (Diag. 511) on a yellow backing boards. There is also advanced directional signings on both approaches. Road Markings Visible and appropriate. Forward visibility of the junction is good. However, eastbound road users, Visibility turning right into Blake Hall Rd, have a reduced visibility of oncoming traffic due to the horizontal alignment. Vegetation none Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
Page 2 of 8
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 2 5 0 2 7
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pattern of eastbound vehicles 0 2 2 0 2 4 turning right across the path of westbound vehicles on the A414.
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – A414 - eastbound approach to Image 2 – A414 - eastbound approach to junction (VAS and warning sign) junction (warning sign)
Image 3 – A414 - eastbound right turn position at junction
Page 3 of 8 5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this location shows a pattern of eastbound vehicles turning right into Blakes Hall Road and colliding with oncoming traffic. To allow road users to gauge the approach speed of oncoming traffic it is proposed to install a number of verge marker posts spaced at regular intervals.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total scheme Design and Construction £15500.00
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Page 4 of 8 Appendix A: FYRR
Casualties treated 0 2 3 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £15,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 34
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 296 %FYRR slight 31 Total % FYRR 327
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.36 or 0.39 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.7 or 0.49 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % Right turns across oncoming Verge marker posts at 11800 34 traffic regular intervals
Page 5 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Agree with officers recommendations
Comments provided by: Date: 8/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 8 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date: 1/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 7 of 8 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: 78-FIRST AVENUE UNSPECIFIED ROAD OR LOCATION ORCHARD CROFT District: HARLOW Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 78
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Page 1 of 8 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) FIRST AVENUE JUNCTION WITH ORCHARD CROFT Grid Reference 546020 - 210787 Speed Limit 40 Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single + Bus Lane (westbound) Gradient None Traffic Management / Carriageway centre line, Bus Lane marking and junction markings Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Unknown Existing TRO’s None SCRIM Data (WIP): No data . Carriageway condition shown as sound:
Road Surface
There are advanced Traffic Signals Ahead warning signs on both approaches on First Avenue and informational for The Stow retail facilities Signing on the westbound approach. There is also a lane designation sign on the westbound approach to the junction with Orchard Croft. Visible and appropriate. Centre lining, Bus Lane marking, Zig-zag on Road Markings approach to controlled crossing. Visibility Forward visibility of the junction and the controlled crossing is good. Vegetation none Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Check with Network Assurance: TRO or Speed Limit
Other
Page 2 of 8
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 1 5 1 1 5
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pattern of east bound vehicles 1 0 3 1 0 3 turning into Orchard Croft into the path of west bound motorcyclists in the Bus Lane.
Page 3 of 8
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – First Ave. westbound approach to Image 2 – First Ave. eastbound approach to junction with Orchard Croft. junction with Orchard Croft.
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this location shows a pattern of east bound vehicles turning into Orchard Croft into the path of west bound motorcyclists in the Bus Lane. From the descriptions provided by Essex Police, it is understood that the motorcyclists are being masked by stationary west bound vehicles in lane 2 (Bus Lane being Lane 1). It is proposed to reduce the length of the Bus Lane and provide a traffic island on First Ave to provide one westbound running lane through the junction. This will remove the masking issue.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Scheme Design Only £7500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Traffic island, carriageway markings and 44% advance signing.
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration NA
Page 4 of 8 9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,066,732 £235,791 £24,887 Collisions treated 1 0 3 Casualties treated 1 0 3 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £7,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 3464 %FYRR serious 0 %FYRR slight 125 Total % FYRR 3589
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.76 or 0.50 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.76 or 0.50 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % East bound vehicles turning into Reduce length of Bus 7500 44 Orchard Croft into the path of west Lane and implement a (design bound motorcyclists in the Bus traffic island, to have one only in Lane westbbound running lane. 2018-19)
Page 5 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: The TRO will need to be altered. Major Project () put this scheme in and it would have been safety audited at the time. Do we have to liaise with David Sprunt and passenger transport as you are suggesting we alter the bus lane network? Other than this I have no objections.
Comments provided by: Date: 8/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Page 6 of 8 Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date: 1/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Page 7 of 8 Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex High ways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: HIGH ROAD, ON JUNCTION OF UPLAND ROAD B1393 UPLAND ROAD District: EPPING Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 117
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
B1393
Upland Road
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name B1393 HIGH ROAD THORNWOOD (s) Grid 546891 - 205183 Reference Speed Limit 50 Street Lit Yes Carriageway Single type Gradient None Traffic Management Centre line and edge of carriageway markings through the junction. Advanced / Existing junction warning signing. Traffic Calming Utilities Unknown Present Existing None TRO’s SCRIM Data (WIP): Deficiencies
Road Surface
Advanced warning sign of side road ahead (Diag 506.1), directional signs at Signing junction. Road Visible and appropriate Markings Forward visibility of the junction adequate. However, the recent introduced Bus Visibility Shelter limits the forward visibility of the directional signing at the junction for southbound road users. Vegetation Not an issue
Page 2 of 9 Highway Is the scheme within Boundary / Yes Highway boundary or Land & No (*if the land is not highway the scheme on land owned by should only proceed to feasibility design & Ownership ECC(*) land acquisition/dedication stage) Check ? Does the scheme require change to an Yes (extension of 40mph speed limit) existing TRO or Speed Limit
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 3 0 1 7
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pattern of southbound 0 1 3 0 1 7 vehicles waiting to turn right into Upland Road being struck by following vehicles.
Page 3 of 9
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – B1393 Southbound approach to Image 2 – B1393 Southbound approach Bus junction with Upland Road Shelter masking signs.
Image 3 – B1393 Northbound approach to Image 4 – Damaged sign arrangement at junction with Upland Road, showing 50mph B1393 High Road jw Upland Road. Terminal signing.
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures A study of the PIC’s at this location shows a pattern of southbound vehicles on the B1393 colliding with other southbound road users waiting to turn right into Upland Road from the B1393. To provide southbound traffic with more time to react to stationary vehicles ahead, it is proposed to extend the current 40mph limit (to the south of the junction) to the north of Rye Hill Road (existing 50mph limit). To improve awareness of the junction it is proposed to provide enhanced Side Road Ahead (diag. 506.1) and Reduce Speed Now sub-plate (diag. 511) on yellow backing boards. A study of the condition of the carriageway shows that some sections through the junction are at critical level (see Road Surface image above). To improve stopping distances for approaching road users, it is proposed that the section of the B1393 through the junction is re-surfaced in a high PSV surfacing (Capital Maintenance).
Page 4 of 9 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Scheme Total Design and Construction £4000.00
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 34%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 0 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017
Page 5 of 9
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,066,732 £235,791 £24,887 Collisions treated 0 1 3 Casualties treated 0 1 7 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £4,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 34
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 573 %FYRR slight 181 Total % FYRR 754
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period
1.36 or 0.39 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.72 or 0.78 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction in Cost £ collisions % Pattern of southbound vehicles Provide enhanced warning 4000 34 waiting to turn right into Upland signs. Road being struck by following vehicles.
Page 6 of 9 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy: Speed Management Stragety
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Agree with all measures except reduction of speed limit, this would not make sense to drivers and would not comply with our speed management strategy.
Comments provided by: Date: 8/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 7 of 9 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Susan Anker Date: 1/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 9 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 5/16 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A128 roundabout onslip onto A127 Location: A128 westbound off-slip to the A128 roundabout
Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A128 from Brentwood
A127 to southend
A127 wb offslip to A128 RAB
2.0 Site Description & Observations A128 southbound approach to A127 on slip
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A128 southbound approach to A127 onslip Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Two lane approach along A128 onto the roundabout, slip road onto A127
Page 1 of 6 has been reduced to one lane due to verge slippage There is slight gradient change along the A128 towards the roundabout, Gradient there is a slight downhill gradient from the roundabout onto the A127 Traffic Major Roundabout junction Management The road surface along the A128 approach to the roundabout appeared satisfactory SCRIM results are detailed below. Red=Critical / Yellow = Below Investigatory / Blue = Warning / Green = Sound
Road Surface
There is ADS signing on the A128 southbound approach, together with signing indicating the slip road onto the A127 has been reduced to 1 lane. Signing There is a give-way sign present on the offside at the roundabout junction together with chevron sign and diagram 606 present on the roundabout central island Road Markings The carriageway markings appeared to be in a relatively good condition. The forward visibility of the actual give-way line is substantially reduced due to the radius of the southbound approach. Road users approaching Visibility the give-way have to crane their neck back in order to check that the circulatory of the roundabout is clear. Vegetation No vegetation issues. It was noted during the site visit that there is no deflection for road users entering from the A128 onto the roundabout circulatory or exiting onto the Other slip road for the A127. As a result road users approach speeds are relatively high, some road users where observed failing to give-way and entering the circulatory or slip road at speed.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Collision details Number Total no. of Collisions 4 (4 slight) Total no. of Casualties 5 (5 slight)
Identified Collision Pattern(s) No of Collisions A128 Southbound road users approaching the give-way 3 (3 slight casualties) line, in rear collisions with other roads at the give-way or failing to give way at the roundabout circulatory/slip road.
Page 2 of 6
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – A128 southbound approach to Image 2 – A128 entry onto roundabout roundabout – (limited forward visibility of circulatory and slip road (no deflection onto give-way line) slip road and circulatory)
Image 3 – Proposed screening location
5.0 Recommendation s A128 southbound approach to A127 on slip
Remedial Measures 1) Short Term Measure - Provide screening measures (vegetation / boarding) within the central splitter island of the A128 southbound entry to the roundabout (as per image 3 above) to reduce approaching road users visibility of other road users already on the circulatory. The repositioning of the roundabout Chevron and signing to diagram 606. 2) Short Term Measure- Remove existing give-way sign on the off-side (central island) replace with yellow backed sign, and provide a similar sign on the nearside at the give- way junction.
Page 3 of 6 6.0 Site Description & Observations A127 WB off-slip to A128 roundabout
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A127 WB off-slip to A128 roundabout Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Two lane slip road approach to roundabout There is a steep incline along the slip road leading to the give-way at the Gradient roundabout Traffic There is a major roundabout present at the top of the slip road Management The road surface along the slip road appeared to be considerably worn, however the SCRIM results indicated below show the slip roads skid resistance is satisfactory. Red=Critical / Yellow = Below Investigatory / Blue = Warning / Green = Sound
Road Surface
There is an advanced give-way sign present in the central splitter island at the beginning of the slip road (see image 1) followed by a ‘queues likely’ sign positioned on the nearside. There is then a secondary advanced ‘give way’ positioned on the nearside (which is missing its distance sub plate) see image 2. At the top of the slip road on the nearside there is a major Signing ADS sign on the nearside (see image 3), and at the roundabout junction there is a ‘give-way’ sign positioned on the nearside (see image 4). There is a chevron warning sign positioned on the roundabout circulatory and a damaged sign to diagram 606 (vehicular traffic must proceed in direction shown) The carriageway markings appeared slightly worn. The ‘slow’ carriageway Road Markings markings present, were faded and require renewal. There is extremely poor forward visibility of the actual ‘give-way’ junction with the roundabout, due to the alignment of the slip road on the approach. Visibility There is no deflection when entering the roundabout from the slip road. Road users have to crane their necks backwards to check that the circulatory carriageway of the roundabout is clear before entering. Vegetation Vegetation is slightly obscuring the ADS at the top of the slip road.
Previous CR scheme installed in Jan 2012 – subsequently there has been Other another 7 nose-to-tail collisions since installation.
7.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Collision details Number Total no. of Collisions 10 (9 slight 1 serious)
Page 4 of 6 Total no. of Casualties 17 (16 slight 1 serious)
Identified Collision Pattern(s) No of Collisions Road users approaching / exiting the A127 westbound 9 (Collisions slight) slip road onto the roundabout circulatory with the A128, 16 (casualties slight) colliding with the rear of other roads at this location
8.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – A127 westbound off-slip to A128 Image 2 – A127 westbound off-slip to A128 roundabout roundabout
Image 3 – A127 westbound off-slip Image 4 – A127 off-slip give-way junction with approaching roundabout junction A128 roundabout circulatory
9.0 Recommendations A127 WB off-slip to A128 roundabout
Remedial Measures 1) Provide distance sub-plate for secondary advanced ‘give-way’ sign 2) Remove the existing ‘give-way’ sign at the junction and replace with a yellow backed
Page 5 of 6 version, together with the provision of a similar sign on the offside approach. 3) Provide carriageway ‘give-way’ markings to diagram 1023 (within both lanes), at the give-way junction 4) Replace the damaged diagram 606 sign present on the roundabout central island; 5) Remove the existing chevron sign present on the roundabout central island, and replace with a larger yellow backed version similar to details below
10.0 Estimated Costs to implement both schemes
Locat ion: A128 roundabout onslip onto A127 Location: A128 westbound off-slip to the A128 roundabout
Total Scheme Implementation: £47,500
11.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 19/02/2018 Design Manager: 19/02/2018
12.0 FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Non Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or greater
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,118,444 £253,984 £28,270 Collisions treated 0 0 12 Casualties treated 0 0 19 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £47,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 46
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 0 %FYRR slight 94 Total % FYRR 94
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 5.52 or 1.58 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 8.74 or 2.50 each year
Page 6 of 6 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1352 Brickmans Hill District: Tendring Collision Investigation Period: (01/01/2007 to 30/04/2017) Site Ranking: N/A
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1352 Brickmans Hill Grid Reference 613745/231248 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit No Carriageway type Single Level on all approaches to the bridge (however there is an incline when Gradient travelling south west which then plateaus out before the approach to the structure) Traffic Management / Existing Traffic • There is no formal traffic calming for the area Calming Yes overhead cables BT to the west of the site overhanging the junction Utilities Present mouth on Wix Road Existing TRO’s None Fair condition. There is no SCRIM data available for the area as these are PR2 routes, However there is Scanner data for Brickmans Hill available showing 2016/2017 data.
Road Surface
Yes there is a double bend warning sign when traveling east for the bend approaching the culvert and Chevroflex chevron signs on the approach to Signing the bend, there is also a double bend ahead warning sign as you enter the derestricted section when travelling westbound along the B1352 (west of Shore Lane) Yes, there are centre lines, hazard lines for the bends, and slow road markings. The ‘SLOW’ text is a little worn. A day time site visit was Road Markings undertaken so the condition of the road studs are unknown.
Page 2 of 10 When travelling in either direction the forward visibility is poor in both directions. It is hard to see the structures parapet on either approach. The B1352 is very twisty and undulating and the bend and vegetation towards Visibility the structure (when traveling west) severely reduces the visibility to the structure. The route is not enclosed by trees and the route both east and westbound can be taken at a relatively high speed before having to reduce speed for the bend ahead. Trees, roadside verge, brick wall on the culvert and the post and rail Vegetation pedestrian barrier on the approaches to the structure. Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
The B1352 is a very twisting and undulating road with sharp bends coming from both Mistley and Bradfield. The route is relatively difficult to drive at the sign posted national speed limit however, the bends do act as a traffic calming measure, it is to be expected that drivers will drive at suitable speeds to reflect the topography of the area. Looking at the route in general between the two parishes boundaries there are a number of warning signs for the double bends along the route. There are chevron warning signs for the bend on the eastbound approach and westbound departure from the bridge structure. The scrim data does suggest an issue on the bend for west bound motorists, there is localised rutting on two sections however it is not felt that this contributed towards the recent fatal incident as the vehicle was travelling east bound.
An investigation of the previous 10 years collision data (01/01/2007 to Other 30/04/2017) 50m either side of this recent fatal collision indicates there have been three other personal injury collisions, however if the search area is increased to 250m either side of the fatal collision location on Essex County Council network indicates that there have been 7 collisions inclusive of the recent fatal. The severity of the collisions are 2 Fatal, 3 Serious, and 2 Slight.
Analysing the data there appears to be a pattern of younger drivers losing control. The data supports that 6 drivers under 25 have had collisions along the route. Only one collision involved a motor cycle this was a serious severity collision. Only 3 of the collisions involved a single vehicle these were all loss of control. 2 of the collisions occurred in the wet. Details of the individual collisions are as follows
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information
Page 3 of 10 FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 7 Personal Injury Collisions, 2 3 2 2 5 8 There is a pattern of loss of control collisions on the bend in both directions and further north on Brickmans Hill involving drivers under the age of 25.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Motorists losing control at the 2 3 1 2 3 1 bends :
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – View looking west on B1352 Image 2 – View looking east on B1352 Brickmans Hill on the approach to the culvert Brickmans Hill on the approach to the culvert
Image 3 – View looking east on B1352 Image 4 – View looking east on B1352 Brickmans Hill on the approach to the culvert Brickmans Hill from the verge at the damaged
Page 4 of 10 barrier
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1. Refresh all existing road markings in general area of site, with additional SLOW markings on both approaches to the bend in appropriate locations. (This element of work to be tied-in with proposed carriageway resurfacing works to be undertaken by capital maintenance team in summer 2018) 2. Replace existing ‘chevroflex’ type signs with new larger versions and yellow borders 3. Replace damaged/missing verge marker posts as necessary through the bend and install additional on outside of bend 4. Install new double-bend ahead VAS for motorists from the west, heading east, where the current double-bend ahead warning sign is found. (Existing warning sign to be removed). 5. Install new bend ahead VAS for motorists from the east, heading south-west – to be located in the eastern verge on approach to field access.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & £23500 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Loss of control on bends 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 22/02/2018 Senior Safety Engineer: 22/02/2018
Page 5 of 10
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 6 of 10 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 7 of 10 Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 10 Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 10 Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Witham Road B1018 Temple Lane District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 3
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
B1018 Witham Temple Road Lane
Site located at grid ref 579815, 218946
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1018 Witham Road/ Temple Lane Grid Reference 579815, 218946 Speed Limit 50mph Street Lit no Carriageway type Single Gradient Slight incline running downhill when heading east Traffic Management / • None Existing Traffic Calming Yes overhead cables on the verge side and utility chambers in the verge Utilities Present and junction island. Existing TRO’s For the 50mph speed limit, Good condition for the circulatory. There is no SCRIM data available for the area, however there is B class road Scanner data available for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Yes junction warning signs on both approaches to the junction Signing • Yes directional signing at the junction with Temple Lane
Yes, giveway markings, there are slow road markings on the approaches, Road Markings and centre line (double white lining) Visibility • Visibility is poor for right turners either into or out of Temple Lane Vegetation Yes there is a grassed verge and hedges within the proximity of the site Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change Yes / No to an existing
Page 2 of 9 TRO or Speed Limit
The area was relatively busy with various motoring types, Witham Road is very fast with limited “gap time” for motorists turning into or out of Temple Lane. The Existing signing is within the visibility splay.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line Other with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been one slight and three serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. Three of the collisions occurred during wet/ damp road conditions.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 3 1 0 3 4 these consisted of : • One motor cycle losing control on the approach to the junction. • Three failure to give- way collisions with right turners heading to Temple lane pulling across the path of oncoming motorists 2 serious and 1 slight.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles Failing to give way 0 2 1 0 2 1 turning into a junction
4.0 Site Photographs (Note ADS sign images taken from Google Maps)
Page 3 of 9 1 – View looking south on Witham Road with Image 2 – View looking north on Witham Road the junction for Temple Lane on the left with the junction for Temple Lane on the right
Image 3 – View looking west on Temple Lane Image 4 – Existing flag tourist sign within (van travelling south on Witham Road) visibility splay
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
This location has been investigated previously with a feasibility report commissioned in 2016, and the area is a known collision site, both for the junction of Witham Road/ Temple Lane, and also along the main B1018, which is a 50mph speed limit, and has numerous bend warning signs, and a double white line system to prevent over taking. It is recommended that the previous feasibility report is reviewed and that options from that study are revised to include for:-
1: It is felt realigning the junction would help provide better inter-visibility between motorists on Witham road to motorists turning right from Temple Lane.
2: remove the bennet island and provide a normal junction layout which would also help reduce traffic speeds into and out of the junction pushing the give-way line further north. Which in turn will allow motorists to sit further north when turning into the junction.
Page 4 of 9 3: There is a water main and fire hydrant this needs to be relocated to the northern verge. 4: provide new road surface and associated road markings.
5: Provide new giveway signing and relocate existing flag signs.
Image 5 -
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Study and Design only £15000 (including topo)
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvement 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 21/12/2017
Page 5 of 9
Appendix A: FYRR
FYRR to be calculated following study.
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Failure to giveway Junction Improvement 18513 44
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I do not agree with point 2, the removal of the Bennett junction, these are a lovely features of the rural locations and once lost they will never be recovered, they do seem to be a feature of Essex.
Page 6 of 9 Removing the Bennett junction will not assist entry into Temple Lane from the B1018.
However the Bennett junction could be realigned, so you could turn left only going out of Temple Lane on to the B1018 and close the other side of the road down, and make the other in and out a junction.
Comments provided by: Olive Porter Date: 13 Feb 2018
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 7 of 9 Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 9 Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Swan Street District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 7
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Swan Street
Summerfields
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Swan Street and Summerfields PR1 Route Grid Reference 578210/ 234090 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Level on all approaches • The site is between a junction through road and close to an existing Traffic Zebra crossing. Management / • There is a dropped crossing point at the junction of Summerfields Existing Traffic • There is a Service station on the western side of Swan Street Calming • There are two shops within close proximity to the scheme with frontages onto the main road Utilities Present Yes overhead cables to the west of the site Existing TRO’s For the road markings Very good condition the route was resurfaced in 2016, with HFS laid on the approach to the zebra crossing. There is SCRIM data available for the area as this is a PR1 route. The data available showing 2017/2018 data showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and yellow sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Flag sign for parking by the Co-op super market Signing • Junction warning sign on the western side footway prior to the zebra crossing • Bus stop flag sign on the western verge Good condition give way lines at the Summerfield junction, yellow lining Road Markings and centre lining is all in good condition • When sat at the junction mouth traveling north or south from Summerfields visibility is good Visibility • When sat at the exit from the service station visibility to the south is good but to the north is obscured by a building.
Page 2 of 10 Vegetation The site has localised vegetation at both junction mouths Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high footfall on the east and west side of Swan Road, it was also observed that the main demographic was older pedestrians and mothers with pushchairs. The entrance and exit from the service station are very wide allowing for quick manoeuvres in and out, even for larger vehicles. There is a concrete hard strip with a channel/ aco drain for the entrance and exit to the service station. It was observed that the station forecourt, footway, and carriageway are all the same colour. There is concern that motorists believe they have right of way when exiting the service station forecourt over pedestrians. Other Personal injury collision data has been obtained for a three and a half year period for the junction. During this time there have been 5 personal injury collisions (2 slight and 3 serious severity).
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to present) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three year period) there have been two slight and three serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 3 2 0 3 6 these consisted of : • one fail to stop involving hgv striking a mother and push chair exiting the service station, • one failure to give way road users colliding with a motorcycle, • one hgv with unsecure load colliding with two pedestrians on the footway, • one vehicle turning into
Page 3 of 10 the service station colliding with a mother and pushchair. • One road user reversing into the path of a pedestrian
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vulnerable road users struck 0 1 1 0 1 2 by vehicles whilst on the footway.
4.0 Site Photographs
Swan Street View looking south west at Swan Street View looking north west at southern garrage entrance northern garrage entrance Image 1 – Image 2 –
Swan Street View looking north towards the zebra crossing Swan Street View looking north with garage on the left and Summerfield junction to the right Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 4 of 10 Swan Street View looking south at the zebra crossing Image 5 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Discuss with the service station about formalising the entrance and exit with new signing including poster signs as shown below (Image 6), and possibly laying giveway road markings on the forecourt or low level traffic calming within the forecourt area to help slow exit speeds.
Image 6 – Poster signs
2: If the service station are unable to progress the measures proposed in recommendation 1: break out the existing footway and install pedestrian tactile paving either side of the garage forecourt entrances.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Page 5 of 10 Total Scheme Cost Design and £10000 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Vehicle Accidents at Junctions 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 28/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 30/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 1 1 Casualties treated 0 1 1 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £14,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 202 %FYRR slight 21 Total % FYRR 223
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 0.88 or 0.25 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 0.88 or 0.25 each year
Page 6 of 10 Appendi x B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date
Page 7 of 10 proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) SM02) (SM03)
Page 8 of 10 Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 9 of 10 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Hall Road / Ashingdon Road / West Street District: Rochford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 14
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Ashingdon Road
West Street
Hall Road
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Hall Road / Ashingdon Road / West Street Grid Reference 587260 190567 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type 3-arm mini roundabout junction Gradient Flat Traffic Management / 3-arm mini roundabout junction with a slightly raised central dome. Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Street lighting present. Existing TRO’s None
Page 1 of 7 Carriageway condition is sound, with a recent new surface. No significant Road Surface defects noted. Cycle route signing along Hall Road directing cyclists to roundabout junction. Signing Give Way sign along Hall Road set too far back from roundabout entry. Height and width restriction signing on Hall Road relating to railway bridge. All markings in good condition and clearly visible. Each roundabout entry Road Markings has two lanes. Visibility for motorists approaching the mini roundabout along Hall Road is Visibility poor to the right. This is due to boundary vegetation overgrowing into the visibility splay. As above, boundary vegetation is present within the radius between Hall Vegetation Road and West Street. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
A railway bridge is present to the south of the site with a height restriction of 13’6” and a width restriction of 6’6”.
This junction makes up part of a signed cycle route. Shared use facilities exist along Hall Road up until this junction. At the junction, cyclists are expected to use the mini roundabout to continue their journey. However, Other the mini roundabout has two-lane entries and was observed to be high speed.
During the site inspection, this junction was observed to be busy on all approaches. Vehicle speeds were also deemed to be high and a number of ‘conflicts were observed.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 2 2 0 2 2
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pedal cyclists being struck on 0 2 2 0 2 2 the roundabout.
Page 2 of 7
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Looking across roundabout Image 2 – Footway on the western side of towards Ashingdon Road; vehicle roundabout junction overrunning thermoplastic island
Image 3 – Hall Road; cycle route signing / Image 4 – Hall Road; two lane entry onto shared use facility roundabout
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Undertake a feasibility study to determine 1) if cyclists approaching from all arms can be taken off-carriageway through the extents of the roundabout junction, before re-joining at a point further away from the junction or 2) improvements can be made to existing roundabout layout to improve safety for cyclists or 3) if an alternative cycle route can be identified to negate the need for cyclists to use the mini roundabout.
Page 3 of 7 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Costs – Design Only £5,000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
None None
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 30/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2016
Appendix A: FYRR
Design Only – FYYR not applicable.
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Feasibility study needs to be validated on completion before being recommended
Comments provided by: Tim Olley Date: 01/12/2017
Page 4 of 7 Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 1.12.17 proposal sent: (SM03)
Page 5 of 7 Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes x No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: The current layout had been installed by Bellways early this year, this was conditioned as part of the planning permission and was required to increase capacity at the roundabout by creating double lane entry. The safety auditors have concerns with the layout however the developer is stating they have installed what ECC required. Ongoing.
Comments provided by: Date: 1.12.17
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 6 of 7 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty Date April Reduction Site Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007 Loss of Control
Locat ion: Church Road, Rivenhall District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Park Road
Church Road
Page 1 of 8 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Church Road Grid Reference 582395/218593 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit No Carriageway type Single The site is a sweeping bend with a farm access on it, the route runs north Gradient to west the route is flat. Traffic Management / • None Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway Existing TRO’s None There is no SCRIM data for the area, as this is not a P1 route, however there is Scanner data. This shows mainly green and that he surface condition is in good condition.
Road Surface
• Yellow backed bend warning sign with sub plate with maximum speed 20 Signing • Chevron Signing • Bus flag signs for a northbound and southbound bus stops
Road Markings Good condition, centre lining, Slow markings, and edge of carriageway. • Good forward visibility in both directions as the route is relatively Visibility open with fields either side, however as there are few features it’s hard to negotiate the bend in either direction. Hedge and trees close to the farm entrance but little vegetation on either Vegetation approach. Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme Yes / No
Page 2 of 8 require change to an existing TRO or Speed Limit
The local alignment for half a mile in either direction is very twisty and the ‘s’ bends to the north have already had remedial measures installed. Although this area has been treated with yellow backed signs it is felt that these are having little impact and that the bend needs delineating for motorists with marker posts or chevron signs. Other Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s loss of control cluster analysis criteria (3 personal injury collisions within a 250m radius over a three and a half year period with loss of control contributory factors) there has been 4 slight and 2 serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 6 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 2 4 0 2 7 these consisted of : • One, poor overtake colliding with an oncoming motorist • Five loss of control collisions with motorists negotiating the bend (one may have been medical related, three of these occurred in wet/damp road conditions).
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Westbound road users - Loss 0 1 2 0 1 2 of control collisions (3in the wet
4.0 Site Photographs (Note all images taken from Google Maps due to
Page 3 of 8 View looking south on Church Road at the View looking north on Church Road at the bend and existing sign bend and existing sign
Image 1 – Image 2 –
View looking south on Church Road at the View looking north on Church Road at the farm access farm access
Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Provide 3 x individual chevron signs in each direction 6 in total on the bend, ensuring they are outside the junction visibility splay for the farm access and do not affect the bus stops.
2: Provide verge marker posts complete with reflective banding in each verge at 5m intervals on Church Road starting at the southernmost bend warning sign.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Survey Design and project management £10500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure
Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA)
Page 4 of 8 Chevron signing 43%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 13/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Loss of control collisionson bend New signing 2505 43
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Page 5 of 8 Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Agree with officers comments
Comments provided by: Date: 15/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No
Page 6 of 8 Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) Date [email protected] sent:
Page 7 of 8 Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Coggeshall Rd_Railway St District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 21
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Courtauld Road Coggeshall Road
Railway Street
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1256 Coggeshall Road Grid Reference 576230/ 223300 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Level on all approaches Traffic • The site is situated at a sub-standard double roundabout with it Management / being neither a compact roundabout or mini roundabout. Existing Traffic • There are three zebra crossings one each on the norther/ southern, Calming and western arms of the roundabouts Utilities Present Yes overhead cables to the west of the site Existing TRO’s For the road markings Fair condition there is localised scaring from trench reinstatement and damage from wear by shear movements of HGV’s There is no SCRIM data available for the area as this is not a PR1 route. The data available showing 2017/2018 scanner data for B and C roads showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly green and blue sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• ADS with map style signs for the two roundabouts travelling west and east on Coggeshall Road • Mini roundabout blue backed signs • Flag signs for Braintree College • Give-way warning signs between the two roundabouts when travelling north Signing • Dead End road signs in the western section of Coggeshall Road • Pedestrian crossing warning sign heading east on Coggeshall Road (by the Sainsburys fuel station) • Flag signs for the station when travelling east on Coggeshall Road • Blue backed advisory sign for the 7.5t weight limit restriction for Courtauld Road • No entry sign on the eastern side of the central island between the two roundabouts, there may have been one for the western side
Page 2 of 10 but this has been damaged and not replaced. Fair condition give way lines are very faded throughout the scheme, yellow lining and centre lining is all in fair condition, there is central hatching close Road Markings to the pedestrian and splitter islands but this is covered in a lot of debrtis and stones. • When sat at any of the give way lines or roundabout give way markings visibility is good in all directions. Visibility • On the all approached it was observed that the existing ADS map signs are obscured by vegetation. Vegetation The site has localised vegetation at both junction mouths Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that the roundabouts are sub-standard being neither mini roundabouts nor “small” roundabouts with a disproportionate circulatory width relative to the roundabout islands. Speeds through the junction are relatively high with very few vehicles stopping at the giveway lines between the roundabouts and or at the roundabout markings on the four approaches. There is a relatively large number of pedestrians in the area, including vulnerable users walking to from the town centre residential area and to the college. All three zebra crossing are in a very poor state of repair with some of the beacons not operational. There was also observed a number of hgv’s using the route including petrol tankers making u turns at the roundabout, again all of these movements are completed at speed. Other The carriageway condition was fair but there are a number of pot holes. It was also observed that there are utility covers and gully covers within the circulatory area of the roundabout itself. Of the four arm approaches Coggeshall Road (eastern section) has no pedestrian provision and it has been observed that pedestrians are using the hatched areas and traffic island to cross north to south and vice versa.
Looking at the three and a half year collision data (01/01/2014 to present) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three year period) there have been three slight and two serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 3 2 0 3 6 these consisted of : • Vehicle colliding with
Page 3 of 10 pedestrian on the roundabout circulatory. • Motor vehicle losing control colliding with the southern roundabout island • Vehicle colliding with a pedestrian crossing south • Motorists pulling off driveway into the path of oncoming vehicle • Nose to tail collision for vehicle heading west towards the roundabout
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vulnerable road users struck 0 2 1 0 2 1 by vehicles or losing control at the roundabouts
4.0 Site Photographs (Note some images are from Google Street View due to lighting conditions)
Courtauld Road View looking south at the Railway St, View looking north at the zebra zebra crossing and the aproach to the crossing and the aproach to the roundabout roundabout Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 4 of 10 Coggeshal Road View looking east at the Coggeshal Road View looking west at the zebra crossing and the aproach to the zebra the aproach to the roundabout roundabout Image 3 – Image 4 –
Coggeshal Road View looking west at the Coggeshal Road View looking east at the existing ADS Keeble Way Junction Image 5 – Image 6 –
View looking at sub standard roundabout View looking at worn lining and damaged island and gulley in cicrculatory surfacing Image 7 – Image 8 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Amend existing splitter island on Coggeshall Road (eastern arm) to provide pedestrian refuge complete with associated kerbing works to the northern and southern kerb line on Coggeshall Road with Tactile paving, new splitter island/ pedestrian refuge
Page 5 of 10 to be a minimum of 2.5m in width, to aid mobility scooter users crossing at this point.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost - £26000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Build Outs (of Roundabout Island and 53% splitter island)
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 30/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 6 of 10 First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Source: ST Collisions treated 0 2 1 Casualties treated 0 2 1 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £26,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 53
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 262 %FYRR slight 14 Total % FYRR 276
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.59 or 0.45 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.59 or 0.45 each year
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Page 7 of 10 Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Page 8 of 10 Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent:
Page 9 of 10 Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 6/17 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A134 Westway, 200m North West of the junction with Middleborough Roundabout, Colchester, Colchester District
Collision Investigation Period: 01/05/2010 – 30/06/2015
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Site located at grid ref 599056, 225756
West Way
Rotary Way
Page 1 of 6 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A134 West Way Speed Limit 40mph Both the northern and southern roundabouts are 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Dual carriageway Gradient Normal Urban dual carriageway, with multi lane approaches to both northern Traffic (Colne Bank) and southern (Middleborough) roundabouts. Pedestrian Management underpass linking the western cycle facility to the Rotary Way residential development.
Road Surface
Fair condition, no notable defects, such as pot holes or failed trenches etc. Surfacing is showing yellow on the Scrim Survey, and there is a Blue section. On visual inspection, the surface is very polished in places, suggesting shear wear from buses. It is unclear from the survey if the exit slip from West Way onto Rotary Way is also poor condition. Warning Yes there are roundabout and queue ahead warning signs for both Signing approaches to the roundabouts. Yes, there are ADS’ on the approaches to both roundabouts. There is a Directional smaller direction sign for Rotary Way. Signing Yes, hatched marking at the roundabout flares. Normal centre line and broken lining for the deceleration lane for Rotary Way. The southbound Road Markings lanes from the northern roundabout, lanes 1 and 2 have a hatched centre marking. There are double yellow parking restrictions on both side of the carriageway the full length of the site. Visibility When travelling south on West Way visibility is good, to and from Rotary
Page 2 of 6 Way, there is a slight left had bend on the approach to the Middleborough Roundabout, and the visibility to a bus layby between Rotary Way and the Middleborough Roundabout is poor, but there is no record of incidents between motorists and buses. The splays to the roundabouts have grassed areas and local planting, but due to the underpass vegetation does not pose an issue for southbound Vegetation traffic on West Way. There is sporadic planting with mature trees along the eastern verge adjacent to the Rotary Way housing development, but none of these trees are in the visibility splay. The road is a typical urban inner ring road/ distributer route, the highway width is 12m and was originally designed as a 60mph route with segregation between motorists and pedestrians. There is a central VRS between the two carriageways, and in the verge to protect the underpass. There is a cycleway running north to south along the western verge, and footway along the eastern verge. Vehicle numbers are busy at peak periods, with it noted on site during quieter times, higher speeds were observed. Although the dualled area is signed as 40mph it is not expected Other/ that these speeds are adhered to. The deceleration lane into Rotary Way Observations does mean that vehicles carry higher speeds into the residential development. The exit from Rotary Way into West Way is relatively short, but there is sufficient gap time to safely join West Way. It is unclear if the loss of control issue is related to rear wheel drive cars. The site visit was undertaken during the day, there may be an issue with drainage as 4 of the loss of control collisions occurred in the wet. There is a “Beany block” drainage system within the kerb line for the exit slip, there are 3 existing gulley’s between the Northern roundabout and the slip for Rotary Way.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Collision details Number Total no. of Collisions 10 (2 serious, 8 slight) Total no. of Casualties 17 (2 serious, 15 slight) Number of collisions in hours of darkness 3 (30%) Number of collisions in wet/damp conditions 4 (40%) Collisions involving vulnerable road users 3 (30%)
Identified Collision Pattern(s) No of Collisions Four collisions involved loss of control in wet conditions 4 (40%) LOC all on the south bound dualled section. 3 Collisions 1 (10%) Shunt involved Motor Cyclists. 1 (10%) Side Swipe
Page 3 of 6
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – View looking south exiting the Image 2 – View looking south in traffic, with northern roundabout onto West Way the exit slip for Rotary Way to the left
Image 3 – View looking North exiting from Image 4 – View looking east at the existing Rotary Way onto West Way drainage system for the Rotary Way exit slip
Page 4 of 6 5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
1) Resurface the carriageway in lane 1 where the PSV is below value, and check that the Scrim for the Rotary Way Exit slip is to required levels, if these are below standard also resurface. (Scheme added to the resurfacing schedule). 2) Under take a topographical survey between the northern roundabout (Colne) and the exit slip for Rotary way, ascertain the cross fall and install 2x new gulley’s in the low spots and tie into the existing drainage network on West Way. 3) Replace the existing 40mph terminal signs with yellow baked signs, remove the existing 40mph repeater sign and replace with a yellow backed sign. Install a new double sided repeater sign within the central reserve equidistant between the existing terminal signs and lamp column 14. 4) Lay new “Slow” road marking in lane one adjacent to the 40 repeater sign next to lamp column 14.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total cost design and construction £8000
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Source: STATS19, Transport Analysis Guidance - WebTAG Collisions treated 0 2 4 Casualties treated 0 2 4 Investigation time period (years) 3 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £8,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 41
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 770 %FYRR slight 160
Total % FYRR 930
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.46 or 0.82 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.46 or 0.82 each year
Page 5 of 6 7.0 Other engineering options for consideration
None considered N/A N/A
8.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 24/08/2015 Safety Engineer: 12/10/2015
Page 6 of 6 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A129 London Road jw Swallow Aquatics, Rayleigh District: Rochford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 29
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A129 London Road
A129 London Road
Swallow Aquatics
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) London Road, access to Swallow Aquatics Grid Reference 578754 191897 Speed Limit 40mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Rural, single carriageway Gradient Flat Traffic Management / Large roundabout junction to west of site. Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Overhead BT cables/telegraph poles. Existing TRO’s None
Page 1 of 8 Road Surface Carriageway condition is sound, no significant defects noted. Large Advanced Direction sign to west of access, for roundabout junction. ‘Welcome to Rawreth’ sign to east of access, partially restricting visibility Signing for motorists exiting Swallow Aquatics. ‘Horse and rider in road’ warning sign, with 40mph repeater and yellow development sign mounted underneath. All markings in good condition and clearly visible. Road Markings Give way markings for Swallow Aquatics are slightly set back from edge of London Road. Visibility to the right for motorists exiting Swallow Aquatics is poor. This is Visibility due to boundary vegetation overgrowing into the visibility splay. As above, boundary vegetation is present within the southern verge along Vegetation London Road, to the east of the junction. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other None.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 2 3 0 2 5
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Failure to give way from 0 1 1 0 1 2 Swallow Aquatics Nose to tail type collisions 0 0 2 0 0 3 involving vehicles waiting to turn right into Swallow Aquatics
Page 2 of 8
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Looking east from Swallow Image 2 – Looking west from Swallow Aquatics access Aquatics access
Image 3 – Vegetation to east of Swallow Image 4 – ‘Rawreth’ sign within visibility splay Aquatics of Swallow Aquatics
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Significantly cut back or remove boundary vegetation to east of Swallow Aquatics access to maximise visibility;
Page 3 of 8 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & Construction £7,500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
None None
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 4 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Agree with cutting back vegetation, the welcome to Rawreth sign does not appear to obscure visibility, a directional sign for Swallow Aquatics is unnecessary & contrary to multiple requests from other businesses. Clear the frontage of other visual distractions (all the signs etc) the solution for people crashing into cars queuing is a right turn lane which probably does not meet the FYRR but should be considered
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/17
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Page 5 of 8 Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal sent: M01) SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: No DM scheme planned at this time.
Comments provided by: Date: 01/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 6 of 8 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8 Sit e Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Lower Park Road/ Station Road B1029 District: Tendring Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 30
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Lower Park Road
Colne Road
Promenade Way
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Lower Park Road, Colne Road, Station Road B1029 PR2 Route Grid Reference 608338/ 216635 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Level on all approaches Traffic • The site is an existing cross roads with an additional junction to the Management / north of the collision site as Station Road forks at this point to Existing Traffic intersect with two junctions at Lower Park Road.
Page 1 of 9 Calming • The road is very wide on Station road allowing two running lanes east to west and two full width Bus Stops. • There is no formal traffic calming for the area Yes overhead cables to the west of the site overhanging the junction Utilities Present mouth of Promenade Way For the road markings and there is a weight limit for HGV’s from Lower Existing TRO’s Park Road entering into Colne Road Good condition. There is no SCRIM data available for the area as these are PR2 routes, However there is Scanner data for Station Road available showing 2017/2018 data showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Give-way warning signs one traveling west on Station Road and one travelling east on Promenade Way • There are signs for the two bus stops on the north and southern footway on Station Road. • There are tourist signs for the caravan site on the eastern verge of Lower Park road. Signing • Direction signs and flag signs at the corner of Promenade Way and Cone Road • There are 7.5t Weight limit restriction signs at the intersection of Lower Park Road and Colne Road, and at the junction of Station Road and Silcot Street. • Warning sign for elderly road users on Colne Road.
Very good condition give way lines bus cage markings. All in good Road Markings condition. • When sat at the junction mouth traveling east from Promenade Way visibility to the north is reduced by vegetation and to the south Visibility by a building, but when sat at the give-way lines visibility is good. • When approaching the junction mouth in a westerly direction on
Page 2 of 9 Station Road visibility to the south is obscured by vegetation and considerably reduced when buses are parked in each respective bus bay (please see images 3 & 5). Vegetation The site has localised vegetation at both junction mouths Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that the give-way signs are often masked by parked buses (along Station Rd), and that there is a significant “see through” issue for motorists heading west on Station Road. The fork in the road may also have an effect on the way in which visitors/ holiday makers use the route. There is also a high proportion of elderly drivers and vulnerable users within the area. With a number of older pedestrians and those in mobility scooters observed on site. Other The junctions are very wide, which make for very easy and fast turning movements.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to present) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three year period) there have been three Slight severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 4 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 2 2 0 2 5 these consisted of 3 fail to look properly and one over shoot collision
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Motorists turning across the 0 2 2 0 2 2 path of other motorists: 3 collisions in total and 1 junction over shoot:
4.0 Site Photographs
Page 3 of 9 Station Road looking west at the existing Station Road looking west at the giveway bus stop lines Image 1 – Image 2 –
Promanande Way looking east at bus in Lower Park Road looking south west at the Station Road sign assembly
Image 3 – Image 4 –
Station Road heading west towards the Promanade Way traveling east looking at junction (showing see through issue) the cross roads Image 5 – Image 6 -
Page 4 of 9 View looking south on Lower Park Road View looking north on Colne Road at the at the cross roads cross roads Images 7 Image 8
5.0 Recommend ations
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: The existing Bus cage marking is reduced in size for the southern side of Station Road, so that Buses sit further north east out of the visibility splay.
2: That the existing flag sign assembly is relocated from the southern side of Promenade Way to the northern side and that two new direction signs on grey backing are erected as part of the assembly one denoting traffic towards Colchester and one towards the marina (ensure new signs are not in the visibility splay).
3: It is recommended that a Pedestrian Island is installed at the junction mouth of Station Road complete with keep left bollards and a new Give-way Sign.
4: New cross roads warning sign with distance sub plate on new post in footway on Station Road within close proximity to property number 32.
5: Raise tree canopy of tree on Station Road within splay.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & £29500 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Vehicle Accidents at Junctions 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
Page 5 of 9 NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 23/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 1 2 Casualties treated 0 1 2 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £29,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 41
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 89 %FYRR slight 19 Total % FYRR 108
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.23 or 0.35 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.23 or 0.35 each year
Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Vehicles Failing to give way Junction Collisions 18513 41
Page 6 of 9 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent:
Page 7 of 9 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: M01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 9 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1025 Mersea Road District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 34
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
B1025 Mersea Road
Napier Road
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1025 Mersea Road Grid Reference 599901/ 224495 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Slight incline running south to north downhill towards the town centre Traffic • The site is at a signalised t junction complete with pedestrian Management / crossing phases on all three arms Existing Traffic • There is a shared cycle facility on the southern side of Napier Road Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway For the 30mph speed limit, and clearway including verge parking Existing TRO’s restrictions Very polished and significant wear to the HFS on all approaches. There is SCRIM data available for the area for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in need of repair with predominantly blue and yellow sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Lane destination signs when traveling north • Shared cycleway signing Signing • Destination signing on Napier Road • Advanced signing for signals on Mersea Road
Fair condition stop lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in fair Road Markings condition Visibility • Good on all approaches and at the stop lines. The site has localised vegetation within the verge this is all well maintained Vegetation and above existing fence and boundary walls Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme Yes / No require change
Page 2 of 10 to an existing TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow of traffic. Although the speed limit is 30mph the gap time at peak hours for right turners trying to gain access to Napier Road is relatively small. It was observed on site that a lot of motorists are failing to wait for the inter green to turn right into Napier Road. Other Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been two slight and two serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 4 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 2 2 0 2 2 these consisted of : • Four failure to giveway collisions with right turners heading to Napier Road pulling out into the path of northbound vehicles.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles Failing to give way at 0 2 2 0 2 2 a right turn facility.
4.0 Site Photographs (Note approach to signals images taken from Google Maps)
Page 3 of 10 Mersea Road Heading south
Mersea Road Heading north Image 1 – Image 2 –
Napier Road heading east
Mersea Road looking at the primary and secondary heads when travelling south Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 4 of 10 Existing secondary head on Mersea Road for Looking South west at the traffic/ pedestrian right turning traffic with indicative green island on Mersea Road situated below the “normal” green aspect. Image 5 – Image 6 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Undertake a study to investigate capacity at the junction. If there is sufficient capacity provide a separate right turn phase for the signals complete with new signal head, removing the existing signal head with indicative green signal and installing a 2 x full signal (complete with three aspects) one depicting right turn green signal and one straight on green arrow.
Image 7 Signal Head.
2: As part of the study investigate if the existing traffic island will need to be widened to facilitate enough clearance of the new signal heads
3: Investigate amending the existing hatching and lining to allow for the new widened island.
4: Liaise with the surfacing team to ascertain if surfacing works are planned for the area (although the HFS is in poor condition the collision pattern does not suggest there is a skidding issue at this site, however due to the poor scrim data it is recommended that the area is resurfaced in the near future as part of any construction works in year 2
Page 5 of 10 of the scheme)
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme cost: Study only £6500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) New traffic signals 67%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 04/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
FYRR to be confirmed following completetion of the study.
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Failure to giveway at junctions New signals 40717 67
Page 6 of 10 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 7 of 10 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 8 of 10 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 10 Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A12 / A414 / Hammonds Road Roundabout, Sandon District: Chelmsford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 47
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Hammonds Road
A12 offslip
A414 Maldon Road
A414 Maldon Road
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A12 / A414 Main Road / Hammonds Road Grid Reference 574860 205460 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit Yes Carriageway type 5-arm roundabout Gradient Generally flat, with slight fall across site from west to east Traffic Management / None. Existing Traffic Calming BT and surface water system within eastern verge along Hammonds Utilities Present Road.
Page 1 of 8 6’6” width restriction along Hammonds Road. No Entry restriction on A12 Existing TRO’s off-slip. Carriageway condition appears in relatively good condition, no significant Road Surface defects noted. SCRIM data shows roundabout circulatory to be ‘below investigatory’. A chevron sign is missing on the roundabout opposite the A12 off-slip arm. Signing An existing roundabout ahead warning sign on the Hammonds Road approach to the roundabout is poorly located and not clearly visible on to motorists due to a bend in the road and nearby vegetation. No road markings along Hammonds Road, despite Google Maps Road Markings confirming these have existed previously. Visibility to the roundabout from Hammonds Road is limited due to a bend Visibility on the approach and adjacent visibility. Heavy vegetation along both sides of Hammond Road. Vegetation is also Vegetation present along the A12 off-slip arm. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to No. an existing TRO or Speed Limit
A number of cyclists were observed to use the roundabout during the site inspection. All cyclists observed joined the roundabout from Maldon Road Other (western arm) before taking the exit onto Hammonds Road (northern arm).
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 4 0 1 4
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Cyclists being struck by 0 1 3 0 1 3 vehicles joining the roundabout.
Page 2 of 8
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Looking southbound along Image 2 – Looking northbound along Hammonds Road approach to roundabout; Hammonds Road; potential location for poorly located roundabout warning sign warning sign in verge (to right of image)
Image 3 – Roundabout circulatory, with A12 Image 4 – Roundabout circulatory, with A12 off-slip entry in foreground and Maldon Road off-slip in foreground and Hammonds Road entry in background entry in background
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Significantly cut back or remove boundary vegetation on Hammonds Road approach to roundabout to improve visibility to roundabout junction; • Relocate ‘roundabout Ahead’ warning on Hammonds Road to a more suitable location (further back from roundabout in eastern verge as per Image 2 above); • Provide hatching on edge of circulatory between Maldon Road (western arm) and A12 off-slip (north-western arm), bringing the give way line for A12 off-slip arm further forward and encouraging cyclists away from the carriageway edge when negotiating the roundabout. • Provide new cycle warning sign on A12 off-slip approach to roundabout
Page 3 of 8 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme - Design & Construction £23,500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings and Signs 41%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
Widen footways along roundabout perimeter This option is higher cost and will likely not be to provide an off-road shared option for justified within the FYRR costings. cyclists.
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 4 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: As a frequent user of this roundabout there is generally poor lane discipline, mistakes and sign damage particularly at the A414 splitter island. Would not some lane markings and lane discipline signs be of use to aid drivers in making the correct decision and not cutting the roundabout? The plot of collisions does not appear to support the remedial measures which appear to relate to a failure to give way, the plot appears to suggest the PICS are occurring well on the circulatory & one is on Hammonds Road itself.
Hammonds Road no longer has lining as it has been downgraded in the hierarchy to local road and there was a decision several years ago not to repaint lines on local roads after surfacing
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 5 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: No planned DM schemes at this time
Comments provided by: Date: 29/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 6 of 8 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Aetheric Road Roundabout District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 64
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Panfield Lane Rosemary Avenue
Aetheric Road Panfield Lane
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Aetheric Road, Panfield Road Grid Reference 575471/ 223415 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Level on all approaches Traffic Management / • The site is an existing mini roundabout Existing Traffic • There is a dropped provision with crossing point on Panfield Lane Calming Utilities Present Yes overhead cables over the roundabout itself Existing TRO’s For the road markings Good condition for the circulatory. There is no SCRIM data available for the area, however there is C class road Scanner data available for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Roundabout Warning signs • Giveway signs for the eastern arm of the roundabout • Advanced ADS on Panfield Lane heading east Signing • Mini Roundabout Signs • Flag Sign for Braintree Leisure centre on Aetheric Road heading North • Advanced ADS on Aetheric Road heading north
Fair condition give way lines need refreshing, yellow lining and centre Road Markings lining is all in good condition Visibility • When sat at the southbound approach and westbound approach to
Page 2 of 10 the roundabout visibility is good. • When approaching the roundabout on Panfield Lane visibility to the south is restricted by a residential hedge Vegetation The site has localised vegetation at both junction mouths Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that the predominant movement for vehicles is from Panfield Lane travelling east to south into Aetheric Road and vice versa. There is very little flow from and too Panfield Lane (east). It is felt that the give-way signing for Panfield Lane east is needed. The collision pattern shows that a disproportionate number of vulnerable road users are coming into conflict with motor vehicles, and as the flow from Panfield Lane (east) are so low that motorists are failing to give-way when travelling north to head east or west. The existing lining is in poor condition and all movements at the mini roundabout are quick with most traffic failing to Other stop. There is no deflection on either approach on Panfield Lane. It was observed on site that the existing lamp column and illumination was not altered when the mini roundabout was installed.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there have been four slight and two serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 2 4 0 2 5 these consisted of : • one loss of control in the wet and dark heading north • one failure to giveway to a cyclist who was travelling east to west • one failure to giveway to a cyclists who was traveling south to east • one nose to tail between two cars travelling east
Page 3 of 10 • One collision with a side swipe to a cyclists as a car over took both heading north to west at the roundabout • One collision involving a motorists and a pedestrian crossing west to east on Aetheric Road
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vulnerable road users struck 0 1 2 0 1 2 by vehicles
4.0 Site Photographs (Note ADS sign images taken from Google Maps)
Panfield Lane (east) looking west at the mini roundbout signs Aetheric Lane looking north on the approach to the roundabout Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 4 of 10 Panfield Lane (west) looking east at the ADS and Flag signs on Aetheric Road giveway signs Image 3 – Image 4 –
ADS on Panfield Lane Image 5 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: That the giveway signing and lining is removed from the eastern arm of Panfield Lane and replaced with a mini roundabout sign and suitable lining.
2: That the mini round about sign and roundabout give way markings are removed, and they are replaced with a new yellow backed giveway sign and new giveway markings on Panfield Lane west.
Page 5 of 10 3: A Cycle Warning sign is erected on the northbound approach to the roundabout on Aetheric Road.
4: Refresh all lining within 100m of the roundabout including double yellow lining, giveways, centre lines, and the roundabout dome.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Design and build £17000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Signing and Lining 21%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 01/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 06/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 6 of 10 First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 1 2 Casualties treated 0 1 2 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £17,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 46
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 174 %FYRR slight 36 Total % FYRR 210
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.38 or 0.39 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.38 or 0.39 each year
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Vulnerable Road user collisions at Warning Signs 9709 46 roundabouts
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A
Page 7 of 10 If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No
Page 8 of 10 works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Page 9 of 10 Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A127 eastbound off-slip at Dunton District: Basildon Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 68
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Dunton Rd
A127 EB off-slip
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A127 EB off-slip at Dunton Grid Reference 565773,189958 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit Yes Dual Carriageway on the roundabout circulatory / Dual carriageway along Carriageway type the A127 EB off-slip Gradient West to east up-hill gradient along the slip road. Traffic Management / None Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present None Existing TRO’s Clearway order Road Surface
Page 1 of 7 Signing Directional Signing for A127 London Road Markings Centre Line markings Good forward visibility for road users travelling along the roundabout circulatory (see image 2) towards the off-slip. Road users exiting the A127 Visibility off-slip to join the circulatory also have adequate visibility of approaching road users on the circulatory (see image 3) Vegetation None Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 2 2 0 2 3
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pedal cyclists travelling north 0 2 1 0 2 1 along the roundabout circulatory, being struck by road users exiting from the A127 EB off-slip.
4.0 Site Photographs
Page 2 of 7 Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
7 day video survey to determine the level of cycle usage around the circulatory. Once results are back review under feasibility study.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Feasibility Only £6500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) %
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
Page 3 of 7 NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
N/A – feasibility only
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Page 4 of 7 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Tim Olley Date: 18/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme: A visual inspection was undertaken and the surface was found to be in fair condition – scanner has not highlighted this area for investigation
Comments provided by: Date: 22/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I have had a look over these and can’t see a problem with these as they are on major routes around Basildon and very unlikely to be running into an LHP scheme
Comments provided by: Date: 15/11/2017
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Page 5 of 7 Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 6 of 7 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A176 Noak Hill Rd jw Wash Rd West, Noak Bridge District: Basildon Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 102
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A176 Noak Hill Rd
Wash Rd East Wash Rd West
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A176 Noak Hill Rd jw Wash Rd West Grid Reference 568525,190522 Speed Limit 40mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Carriageway Gradient South to north downhill gradient Traffic Management / None Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes Existing TRO’s None SCRIM results indicates a below investigatory level on both approachs of A176 Noak Hill Rd. Road Surface
Page 1 of 11 A127 – HGV signing opposite the junction with Wash Rd (west) Signing A176 North and southbound – HGV restriction signing
Road Markings Give-way markings at the junction are worn. Visibility Good in both directions Vegetation None Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Yes – Does the scheme Proposal to ban the right turning of road users from Wash Road (west) into require change Noak Hill Rd. to an existing TRO or Speed Full consultation has already taken place in regards to the scheme Limit proposals:
This note has been written on behalf of the Basildon LHP in order to seek the Cabinet Member’s approval to install a right hand turn prohibition for traffic exiting Wash Road (west section) onto Noak Hill Road (A176), Basildon.
The concept of a right turn prohibition was first raised by the Road Safety Team in 2011 in response to a pattern of collisions involving the right hand Other turn movement. A right hand turn prohibition ‘trial’ was subsequently commissioned by the Basildon LHP and approved by Councillor Bass, but this was cancelled before implementation at the request of the Cabinet Member after opposition by local residents during their consultation (around June 2014).
As a result of the failure to find a resolution at this casualty reduction site,
Page 2 of 11 the Basildon LHP commissioned successive feasibility and traffic modelling studies in 14/15 and 15/16 (in addition to a previous study commissioned in 12/13) looking at more costly alternative junction alterations including the introduction of traffic signals or a roundabout. Aside from being against Policy and/or highly costly, traffic modelling has now shown that all of the ‘alternative’ measures would have a negative impact on traffic, particularly on Noak Hill Road (A176), often putting junction arms above their design capacity at peak hours. Upon consideration of these findings (as well as the continuing pattern of accidents) the Basildon Panel have resolved to once again seek the introduction of a lower cost right hand turn prohibition. This note is written therefore to seek the Cabinet Member’s re-consideration of the right turn prohibition.
Page 3 of 11 Background / Key Considerations / Issues Background
The A176 Noak Hill Road, Wash Road (west section) junction is located on the north-west edge of Basildon. The A176 is a single carriageway road classified as a PR1 radial feeder route with a 40mph speed limit. Wash Road is a single carriageway road classified as a PR2 link road and has a speed limit of 30mph.
There have been have been 13 recorded collisions at this site over the past 10 years (01/04/2006 to 31/03/2016). Nine (7 slight and 2 serious) of these collisions involved road users turning right out of Wash Road into the path of northbound and southbound road users. A fatal collision on 25/3/2016 further underlined the urgent need for casualty reduction measures at this site.
The number of accidents at this junction alongside the cost, policy and traffic management implications of potential improvements has led to a number of detailed studies in 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
The 2012-13 study (undertaken by the Transport Planning team ) explored the feasibility of introducing a roundabout at the junction. The study concluded that installing a roundabout could cause “significant delays” on A176 Noak Hill Road during AM peaks, and may counter standard policy by giving equal priority to PR1 and PR2 roads. As a result of this study and the advice of engineers, the Basildon LHP agreed to seek the implementation of a right hand turn prohibition trial, which would be supported by signage, a temporary TRO and temporary physical measures. If successful the right hand turn prohibition would be made permanent.
The trial prohibition was initially supported and approved by Councillor Bass. However, upon receipt of passionate correspondence from residents and negative media coverage during consultation, Councillor Bass requested that the scheme be cancelled and alternative measures further explored.
Councillor Bass’ request led to the undertaking of a further study by the Highway Improvement Design Team in 2014/15. This study looked at all possible alternatives to a right hand turn ban – namely a mini roundabout, traffic signals, and once again a roundabout. The study found that a mini roundabout would be unsafe. The study also highlighted a number of potential problems with the roundabout and traffic signal options.
In order to definitively assess the suitability of a roundabout or traffic signals the design team recommended that a further traffic modelling study be undertaken in 15-16 by the transport planning team. This study would also be useful in assessing the impact that any improvement would have on neighbouring roads such as Dunton Road and High Road North, where LHP Members had complained about a perceived problem with “rat running”.
The 15-16 study went through the congestion and road safety implications of various traffic signal and roundabout layouts before concluding that “all options could potentially improve the safety issues at the junction. However, with the exception of the right turn ban, all options tested were shown to worsen the levels of capacity and delay at the junction particularly for the main road.” The recommendation of the study therefore was “to implement a ban on the right turn movement out of Wash Road West, either as a trial, as has previously been suggested, or permanently to reduce the number of collisions at the junction.” Map
Page 4 of 11
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 0 3 1 0 4
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Road users turning right out of 1 0 3 1 0 4 Wash Road (west) into the path of northbound road users (3 collisions) and southbound road users (1 collision)
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Page 5 of 11 Remedial Measures
As detailed above and in the drawing below: Implementation of a right turn prohibition of right turn for road users exiting Wash Road (west) Temporary Trial of 18 months:
Page 6 of 11 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme: Design and Implementation £65000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions Prohibition of right turn 100%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 1 0 3 Casualties treated 1 0 4 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £65,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 382 %FYRR serious 0 %FYRR slight 14 Total % FYRR 395
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.76 or 0.50 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.2 or 0.63 each year
Page 7 of 11 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments: If this is to be an experimental TRO is must be monitored and additional works instigated if levels of non-compliance are observed.
Comments provided by: Date: 18/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme: A visual inspection was undertaken and the surface was found to be in fair condition – scanner has not highlighted this area for investigation
Comments provided by: Date: 22/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 8 of 11 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I have had a look over these and can’t see a problem with these as they are on major routes around Basildon and very unlikely to be running into an LHP scheme
Comments provided by: Date: 15/11/2017
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 9 of 11 Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 11 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Greenstead Road junction with Hythe Station Rd District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 114
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Greenstead Road
Hythe Station Road
Page 1 of 11 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Greenstead Rd jw Hythe Station Rd Grid Reference 601740/ 224890 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Slight incline running north to south downhill towards the town centre Traffic • The site is at a t junction complete with pedestrian island Management / • There are bus stops and laybys on Greenstead Road Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway There are TRO’s for the parking restrictions and a prohibition of entry for Existing TRO’s Hythe Station Road to restrict vehicle flow across the rail line. Good condition. There is no SCRIM data available for the area for 2017/2018 how ever there is Scanner data for C class roads showing that the route is in good repair with all green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
Signing • Junction Warning Sign • Junction Giveway Sign
Page 2 of 11 • Prohibition of cycling sign for the footpath north of Greenstead Road • Map signs for the prohibition of motor vehicles on Hythe Station Road • Cycle direction signing • Bus stop flag signs • Overhead cable warning signs (for approach to the rail line)
Fair condition stop lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in fair Road Markings condition • Good on all approaches and at the giveway lines on Hythe Station Visibility Road. The site has little vegetation however there is a large tree to the north west Vegetation on the location that is obscuring some of the signing for the area, it is situated above existing fence and boundary walls on private land Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a large number of commercial vehicle movements in and around the junction, including deliveries to business. There is also a lot of bus movements to and from Greenstead area towards the town centre. The footfall was relatively low with many vulnerable road users waiting at the bus stops or crossing from south to north towards the A133. It was however observed that there was a high number of cyclists. There is no cycle infrastructure and speeds by courier drivers and van drivers was quick through the site and junction. Although Other there has been some localised narrowing opposite Hythe Station Road on Greenstead Road this has not helped to reduce vehicle speeds.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been three slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 4 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 3 0 1 3 these consisted of : • Two failure to giveway collisions with motorists pulling out
Page 3 of 11 into the path of oncoming vehicles/ cyclists from Hythe Station Road into Greenstead Road. • Two side swipe/ poor overtake collisions from motorists colliding with cyclists travelling north on Greenstead Road.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles colliding with cyclists. 0 1 2 0 1 2
(Note Greenstead Road heading south images taken from Google Maps) 4.0 Site Photographs
Greenstead Road Heading south
Greenstead Road Heading north Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 4 of 11 Greenstead Road looking at the existing dropped crossing provision
Hythe Station Road heading east Image 3 – Image 4 –
Hythe Station Road looking at the existing crossing provision. Image 5 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
New off carriageway cycle facilities, to help cyclists heading from Greenstead area to the Hythe Station:
1: Provide 2 new cycle scoops one on Greenstead Road and one on Hythe Station Road one prior to the bus stand and one prior to the deliver entrance for the Tesco Superstore.
Page 5 of 11 2: Provide new hazard paving and signing and convert existing south footway on Hythe Station Road and footway on the west of Greenstead Road to a shared footway cycleway.
New on carriageway cycle facilities to help cyclists travelling east to west and vice versa:
3: Undertake a survey of the existing highway widths on Greenstead Road and if sufficient width is available provide advisory cycle lanes on carriageway 50m either side of the junction with Hythe Station Road. If there is insufficient width provide an advisory cycle lane for north west bound cyclists only.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost: Design and £18000 Construction
7.0 Predicte d Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Road Improvement 62%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 06/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 07/12/2017
Page 6 of 11
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Source: ST Collisions treated 0 1 3 Casualties treated 0 1 3 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £18,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 157 %FYRR slight 49 Total % FYRR 206
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.76 or 0.50 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.76 or 0.50 each year
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Motorists coliding with cyclists Road Improvement 15882 62
Page 7 of 11 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 8 of 11 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 9 of 11 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 11 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 7/18 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A13 London Road j/w Rectory Road, Hadleigh District: Castle Point Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2013 – 31/07/2016 Site Ranking: 136
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Rectory Road
A13 London Road
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A13 London Road, Rectory Road Grid Reference 581042,187070 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes The A13 at this location forms part of a gyratory type system, and the site is on the eastbound carriageway of this system. In advance of the junction Carriageway type the A13 has two all traffic lanes and a nearside bus lane. Downstream of the junction there are four lanes, two east and two back onto the gyratory system westbound. Gradient The site is level. The A13 junction with Rectory Road is a traffic signal junction, with pedestrian facilities. The eastbound bus lane has an early start over the Traffic two general traffic lanes. The left turn from the A13 onto Rectory Road Management northbound looked to be set on green only changing to red upon pedestrian demand. Road Surface The junction has a thin surface course system surface. High Friction
Page 1 of 5 Surfacing (HFS) has been applied to the two general traffic lanes. There is some old red HFS on the bus lane and a large patch. There are a few cracks present in the surface.
The 2015/16 SCRIM survey shows the approach to be ‘warning’ but the eastbound lane becomes ‘below investigatory’ at or passed the junction.
There is an ‘end of bus lane’ sign and two ‘kill your speed’ signs, local and Signing tourist direction signs and a sign containing the times of the urban clearway effecting the area. The road markings are generally in good condition although the double Road Markings yellow lines are worn in places and missing at the location of the large patch. Visibility is generally not a problem but vehicles in the bus lane can mask Visibility or be masked by vehicles in the general traffic lanes. There is a risk that overhanging branches from the churchyard may Vegetation obscure the offside traffic signal heads and the direction signs on this side of the road.
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 5 0 1 6
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Pedestrians mis-using the 0 1 2 0 1 2 signalised crossing point and
Page 2 of 5 being struck by eastbound road users, including within the bus lane.
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – A13 looking east at end of red Image 2 – The traffic signals with all signals surfaced bus lane, terminating to allow road green users to enter it to turn left into Rectory Road
Image 3 – The ahead traffic signals all red Image 4 – the early start on the bus lane green whilst the general traffic signals red.
Image 5 – view from the southern crossing Image 6 – the crossing carpet point looking west along the A13
Page 3 of 5 5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
1. Remove the traffic island currently separating the general traffic and bus lane, and revise the layout to suit, with three adjacent lanes and a single straight across crossing. (To retain a similar layout to the existing it would be necessary to have a much larger refuge island with staggered crossing point to ensure pedestrians crossed the bus and traffic lanes in two stages).
2. Replace signal equipment with near-sided pedestrian display units.
Following a design meeting with ITS on 02/08/2017 – the design for this scheme is being adjusted to a feasibility level: Undertake a feasibility study and required traffic modelling into possible options at this signal controlled junctions: Options to be investigated include: • Repositioning of the Signal Stop Line further west, (including repositioning of the bus lane loop) but with signals remaining in current location • Complete removal of central island, with potential omission of bus lane facility at signals resulting in having 2 lanes at the traffic signals as opposed to 3 lanes (including the bus lanes), this would also require lining amendments on the approach • Complete removal of central island, with potential omission of bus lane facility at signals retaining 3 lanes but having the right (offside lane) as a right turn lane only at the traffic signals, this would require lining amendments on the approach.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
DESIGN ONLY £13000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Signal Improvement 22%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
None
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 25/11/2016
Page 4 of 5 Senior Safety Engineer: 01/12/2016
Appendix A: FYRR
NA – design only
Page 5 of 5 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: The Street B1137 Junction with A12 District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 143
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A12
The Street
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) The Street Grid Reference 578133/ 211428 Speed Limit 50mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Slight incline running downhill when heading east Traffic • The site is at a right turn lane onto the A12 from The Street, Management / complete with traffic islands to protect right turners Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes overhead cables on the verge side Existing TRO’s For the 50mph speed limit, prohibition of left turn for north east motorists Good condition for the circulatory. There is no SCRIM data available for the area, however there is B class road Scanner data available for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Yellow backed No entry signs • Yellow backed give way signs • Advanced giveway sign for westbound users Signing • Bollards with 606 • Direction signs • Prohibition of left turn signs • ADS with junction Map for west bound motorists Fair condition give way lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in Road Markings good condition • Good on all approaches east and west and when sat in the right Visibility turn lane waiting to turn to join the A12. Vegetation The site has localised vegetation within the verge Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change Yes / No to an existing TRO or Speed
Page 2 of 9 Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow heading west to the A12. Although the speed limit is 50mph the gap time at peak hours for right turners trying to gain access to the A12 is not consistent. It was observed that motorists are travelling downhill when heading east. It is felt that speed data should be obtained to gauge if speeds are higher than 50mph. As the road is the old main road it is very wide, and although there are traffic islands and hatching the Other route still feels fast and not a 50mph limit.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been three slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. All of the collisions occurred during daylight hours in dry conditions.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 3 0 1 6 these consisted of : • One eastbound motorist performing a u-turn at the right turn lane and pulling into the path of an oncoming vehicle. • Three failure to give- way collisions with right turners heading to the A12 pulling out into the path of eastbound vehicles
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles Failing to give way at 0 1 2 0 1 2 a right turn facility
4.0 Site Photographs (Note ADS sign images taken from Google Maps)
Page 3 of 9 The Street loooking west in advance of the right turn lane (showing 50mph repeater sign) The Street looking east at the existing junction and traffic islands Image 1 – Image 2 –
The Street loooking west in advance of the right turn lane ADS sign looking west Image 3 – Image 4 –
The Street travelling east looking at the The Street loooking west in advance of the existing 50mph speed limit terminals right turn lane looking at no entry signs and damaged give way sign Image 5 – Image 5 –
5.0 Recom mendations
Remedial Measures
Page 4 of 9 The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Lay a new 50mph Roundel carriageway marking at the 50mph Terminals
2: Undertake a speed survey in advance of the existing traffic islands travelling north east and if speeds are inappropriate provide a VASID “50” “SLOW DOWN”(in northern verge).
3: Provide a new bolt down traffic island complete with bollards and high mounted posts with 606 signing close to the new VASID sign complete with SLOW road marking, to create a narrowing affect for eastbound motorists.
4: Replace damaged sign post and remount existing yellow backed give way sign at the right turn lane.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme cost design and build £29500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvement 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 04/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR Page 5 of 9 First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 1 2 Casualties treated 0 1 2 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £29,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 98 %FYRR slight 20 Total % FYRR 118
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.32 or 0.38 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.32 or 0.38 each year
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Failure to giveway at Right turn Junction Improvement 18513 44 lane
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Page 6 of 9 Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Page 7 of 9 Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) M02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 8 of 9 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Ashingdon Road jw Rectory Road, Rochford District: Rochford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 162
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Ashingdon Road junction with Rectory Road Grid Reference 586899 192039 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Urban, single carriageway Gradient Flat Traffic Management / Existing 3-arm mini roundabout junction. Existing Traffic Calming 3 small covers within the roundabout junction; 1 within Rectory Road Utilities Present splitter island and 2 within circulatory. Existing TRO’s None Road Surface New road surface along Ashingdon Road and partially into Rectory Road.
Page 1 of 7 It is felt the ‘give way’ markings and associated sign on the southern arm is Signing not appropriate. Motorists joining the roundabout from Rectory Road may see the give way line for northbound motorists and expect them to stop. All markings new and clearly visible. Raised central dome, two give way Road Markings markings for each Ashingdon Road entry to mini roundabout and one roundabout entry marking for Rectory Road. Visibility is generally good. Some trees within the verge of Ashingdon Visibility Road sit within the splay for motorists approaching the roundabout from Rectory Road, looking right. As above, some small trees are present within the southern verge along Vegetation Ashingdon Road, to the east of the junction. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
During the site inspection, a number of motorists joining the roundabout from Rectory Road undercut the roundabout island. This is likely due the position of the roundabout island combined with a thermoplastic splitter Other island that can be overrun. Moreover, there is good visibility to the right for motorists approaching the junction from Rectory Road, and it is likely that motorists are making a decision to enter the junction early and failing to stop and check when entering.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 2 8 0 2 9
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Failure to give way from 0 2 2 0 2 3 Rectory Road to northbound road users
Page 2 of 7
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Mini roundabout junction Image 2 – Looking westbound down Rectory Road from roundabout junction
Image 3 – Rectory Rd looking northbound up Image 4 – Rectory Rd looking southbound Ashingdon Road from roundabout junction down Ashingdon Road from roundabout junction
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Provide physical splitter island at Rectory Road entry to roundabout junction to prevent vehicles undercutting the roundabout island; • Remove ‘Give Way’ road markings and associated sign plate and install standard roundabout markings for the northbound Ashingdon Road approach to the roundabout;
Page 3 of 7 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Costs – Design & Construction £26,000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvement 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Page 4 of 7 Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Need a swept path, details of use before this can be considered properly
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/17
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent:
Page 5 of 7 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict(SM01) with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: No planned DM scheme at this time
Comments provided by: Tara Jowett Date: 01/12/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 7 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7 Site Report Essex Highway s Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A130 Canvey Way junction with B1014 RAB District: Castle Point Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 180
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A130 Canvey Way (SB approach to roundabout with B1014) Grid Reference 577861,185066 Speed Limit 50mph Street Lit Yes Single carriageway, opening up to two lane approach towards the Carriageway type roundabout Gradient None Traffic Management / The 50mph speed limit along the A130 Canvey Way is enforced using Existing Traffic ‘time over distance’ cameras. Calming Utilities Present None affected Existing TRO’s None affected Latest SCRIM survey data indicates that the surface is a ‘sound’ condition. Road Surface
Page 1 of 8 Junction countdown markers as per image 1: Speed Limit repeater signing and camera enforcement repeater signs. ADS signing as per image 2 Signing Roundabout ahead warning sign positioned behind the RRS as per Image 3. Keep Left bollard present at beginning of roundabout splitter island.
There are edge of carriageway markings, lane destination arrows, and Road Markings central hatching. Also a lane bifurication arrow present where the single lane approach splits into two on the roundabout approach. There is good visibility on the approach to the roundabout. It was also noted that approaching road users also have a wide peripheral vision of Visibility the whole of the roundabout circulatory and, and therefore they are able to make a decision as to whether slow down fully on the approach (Please see image 4). Vegetation None Highway Is the scheme within Yes / Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Not required. scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 3 12 0 3 17
Page 2 of 8 Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site 2 x southbound single vehicle FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT loss of control / 3 x southbound nose-to tail collisions 0 1 4 0 1 4
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 3 of 8 Image 5:
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures It is recommended that ‘approach screening’ be applied within the central island splitter island for southbound road users approaching the roundabout.
Improvements to the roundabout chevrons directly opposite the southbound approach should also be undertaken, which will include replacing the damaged chevron and keep left signing.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Design and Implementation £49,000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Package of measures (new chevron signing 42% and approach screening)
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 4 of 8 First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Non Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or greater
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,118,444 £253,984 £28,270 Collisions treated 0 1 4 Casualties treated 0 1 4 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £49,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 46
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 68 %FYRR slight 30 Total % FYRR 98
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.3 or 0.66 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.3 or 0.66 each year
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 5 of 8 A visual inspection was undertaken and the surface was found to be in fair condition – scanner has not highlighted this area for investigation
Comments provided by: Date: 24/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: The sites don’t conflict with any of our existing schemes, obviously Sarah will be able to advise if there is conflict with future schemes. Might be worth checking with Matt V as well on S106 schemes.
Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any
Page 6 of 8 other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ there aren’t any developments currently which would clash with your schemes.
Mark Lawrence at County Hall would know more about what’s coming up in the area.
Comments provided by: Susan Anker Date: 13/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 7 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A176 Nethermayne / BP Service Station District: Basildon Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 189
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Roundacre roundabout
Petrol Station entrance
Petrol Station exit
A176 Nethermayne
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A176 Nethermayne Grid Reference 569984,188463 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single carriageway (south bound) / dual carriageway (northbound) Gradient None (uphill gradient to the south of Ashdon Way) • Traffic Signalised junction (including Toucan Crossing), across A176 Nethermayne, Traffic • Signalised junction (including Toucan Crossing) across Ashdon Management / Way Existing Traffic • Keep left bollard on central island leading up to Roundacre Calming Roundabout • Entry and Exit signing for Petrol Station Utilities Present Yes Existing TRO’s 30mph Limit Site Observation indicated that the carriageway was in a good condition. Road Surface SCRIM condition results as per below:
Page 1 of 8 • No ‘U’ turn for 800yds signing. • Narrow Lanes ahead. Signing • ADS sign along NB nearside.
Road Markings Southbound centre-line carriageway road markings are slightly worn. Visibility Good visibility in both directions when exiting the petrol station. Vegetation No issues. Highway Is the scheme within No – check required Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Discussions involving extension of centre island / reversing entry/exit into BP station: 25/10/2017 Reversing the entry/exit may be an option and I think it would be good to talk this option through as I can see advantages and disadvantages. We may need a combination of the two proposals. Change the entry/exits over and extend the island. Then vehicle would be forced to only entre BP travelling south. Letting drivers turn right into the petrol station may cause queuing on the northbound A176. I don’t think that the alignment of the pumps is an issue but this is something we would need to look at and discuss with BP/M&S when we have a workable option.
There could be another option of moving the northern access on to Southernhay alongside Bath Store building, but this will obviously have more cost.
25/10/2017 Extending the island was ruled out as it would introduce u turns at more inappropriate locations further along Nethermayne. Other Reversing the polarity, so to speak, was considered but I don’t think BP were impressed, and we would have had to pay for it. Personally I think there is a not insignificant residual risk in having the BP traffic leave their site and enter the gyratory of a busy five arm roundabout and I wonder whether it would just move a problem to that location instead.
I think the round the houses conversation ended up as ‘leave it as it is’ as no change was the least problematic option. I think it was decided that it was not the essence of the project to try and manage the garage exit as part of the design; it was moving away from the overall project brief
27/10/2017: Regarding the extension of central island, we did look into it in some detail. Aware of the road traffic collisions involving vehicles exiting from the BP petrol station, we did suggest to lengthen the central island and divert the traffic left onto Nether Mayne and into Ashton Way. Our traffic team carried out some modelling and concluded that this proposal would lead to significant increase in congestion leading to queuing up to Roundacre, thereby undermining the scheme.
The results were presented to the client, Ian Allen, and a decision was made by him to retain the central island as existing
Page 2 of 8
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 0 6 0 0 6
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Road users exiting BP service 0 0 5 0 0 5 station, to travel north, colliding with other road users (southbound 4 collisions, northbound 1 collision)
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 3 of 8 Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
DESIGN ONLY: • Extending the central island along A176 Nethermayne (as per image 3) to prevent road users turning out of the B.P. station to travel north along the A176 onto Roundacre roundabout. • Undertake discussions with B.P Services station (and Beverley Gould from ECC) to determine if we can reverse the entry / exit to the BP station. • Undertake preliminary design that would be required to kerbing etc if the entry / exits of BP service station were reversed.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Feasibility Only £8000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Package of measures 42%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date
Page 4 of 8 Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
N/ A Feasibility
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Page 5 of 8 Comments provided by: Date: 18/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme: A visual inspection was undertaken and the surface was found to be in good condition – scanner has not highlighted this area for investigation
Comments provided by: Date: 22/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: J Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I have had a look over these and can’t see a problem with these as they are on major routes around Basildon and very unlikely to be running into an LHP scheme
Comments provided by: Date: 15/11/2017
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Page 6 of 8 Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 7 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: Colchester Road A1124 Wakes Colne District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 191
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Colchester Road A1124
Napier Road
Page 1 of 10 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Colchester Road/ Lanes Road Grid Reference 599901/ 224495 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit No Carriageway type Single Gradient Significant incline running west to east downhill towards the village hall Traffic Management / • The site is east of a bend with a minor junction on it. Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge Existing TRO’s For the 30mph speed limit Very polished and significant wear on the north west bound carriageway. There is SCRIM data available for the area for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in need of repair with predominantly red and yellow sections for the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Bend Warning Signing on both approaches • Ice Warning signing for north bound motorists Signing • Exclamation sign with road liable to flooding sub plate for northbound motorists • 30 repeater signs
Road Markings Fair condition, centre lining, and edge of carriageway all in fair condition
Page 2 of 10 • Poor on either approach and at the junction mouth due to the bend Visibility and vegetation and a property boundary wall The site has localised vegetation within the verge this is not maintained Vegetation and has overgrown above existing fence and boundary walls this is leaving the carriageway in shadow during most of daylight hours Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow of traffic. Although the speed limit is 30mph speeds downhill are likely to be higher. The route is heavily tree lined with the carriageway in shadow for most of daylight hours. There is existing signing warning of surface water and ice however this is for northbound motorists. The scrim data suggests that there is an issue with the carriageway and that the area needs resurfacing. We have liaised with the Area maintenance team and they have confirmed that there is an issue with surface drainage and that there is significant run off from adjacent land onto the carriageway. There may also be issue with the existing Other drainage system (downstream) and it is likely that the outfall is blocked. Our records show that the system was last cleaned in October 2016. There is one road gully on the bend and a number of gulley offlets within the kerb line on both sides of the carriageway, many of them are silted up.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (6 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been five slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. Of the 6 collisions recorded 5 occurred during wet conditions.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 6 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 5 0 2 2 these consisted of : • One signal vehicle loss of control in the wet. • Two number two vehicle loss of control in the wet one northbound one south bound. • Two number two loss
Page 3 of 10 of control collisions with Vehicle 1 drifting colliding head on to opposing vehicles • One nose to tail collision at temporary traffic signals in wet conditions
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles losing control in wet 0 0 4 0 0 4 conditions. (three eastbound and one westbound)
4.0 Site Photographs (Note approach to signals images taken from Google Maps)
Colcheter Road Heading South east
Colcheter Road Heading North west Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 4 of 10 Existing Gulley offlet opposite Lanes Road junction
Existing gulley opposite Lanes Road junction Image 3 – Image 4 –
View looking north from Lanes Road junction mouth. Existing gulley offlet south east of the bend likely to be piped into adjacent field. Image 5 – Image 6 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Liaise with the Area Maintenance Engineer and organise to jet out the existing drainage system, Investigate capacity of the existing surface water system undertaking a cctv survey locating the outfall.
2: If the system is damaged or the soak away is no longer working arrange for repairs to the system to be made.
Page 5 of 10 3. If capacity is available within the system undertake a topo survey to locate the low spots within the carriageway and install 2 x new gulley’s on the bend.
4: Liaise with the surfacing team to ascertain if surfacing works are planned for the area due to the poor scrim data it is recommended that the area is resurfaced in the near future.
5: If surfacing is due to take place organise for rain line to be laid for the edge of carriageway lines and 30 roundels at regular intervals adjacent to the existing 30mph repeater signing.
6: Install slippery road surface signs in both directions of Colchester Road
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Design Only £9500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) New surfacing and drainage 57%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 06/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Page 6 of 10
Appendix A: FYRR
NA – design only
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work?
Page 7 of 10 If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 8 of 10 Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 10 Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex High ways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: East Street jw Old Coach Rd District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 194
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Old Coach Road
Moorside
East Street
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Page 1 of 12 Details Description/Observations Road Name East Street / Old Coach Rd / Moorside (s) Grid 600903/ 225330 Reference Speed Limit 30mph by virtue of street lighting Street Lit Yes Carriageway Single type Gradient Slight incline running east to west downhill towards the town centre Traffic • The site is a cross roads with the main route running east to west Management / • There is a pedestrian refuge to the east of the junctions on East Street Existing and one at the junction with Old Coach Road Traffic Calming Utilities Yes within verge and footway Present Existing For the parking restrictions one way restriction in Old Coach Road, prohibition TRO’s of left turn sign for East Street into Old Couch Road The road surface is scared with utility trenches and was resurfaced in 2009. There is SCRIM data available for some of the area for 2017/2018 showing that the route is sound condition with predominantly blue and green sections for the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Warning signs for overhead cables • Giveway Warning signs • Two way traffic warning sign Signing • Prohibition of entry signs • One way signs • Rail line Warning signs • Prohibition of left turn sign
Page 2 of 12 • Brown tourist signs Fair condition stop lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in fair Road condition. Keep clears are quite worn. There is a bifurcation arrow and a right Markings turn lane for motorists heading east. • Good on all approaches to the junctions. • When sat at the give-way lines for Moorside, visibility can be obscured if vehicles are parked in the parking area outside of Colchester Electrical Whole Sale. Visibility looking to the left (west) is also very Visibility constrained by the existing building line (see image 2 below) • Visibility from Old Coach road onto East St is relatively poor with sign clutter and lamp column masking the area particularly for motorists when looking right (west). Vegetation None Highway Is the scheme within Boundary / Yes / No Highway boundary or Land & Yes / No (*if the land is not highway the scheme on land owned by should only proceed to feasibility design Ownership ECC(*) & land acquisition/dedication stage) Check ? Does the scheme require change to an Yes / No existing TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow of traffic. Although the speed limit is 30mph the gap time at peak hours for right turners trying to gain access to/ from Moorside. There is a significant HGV movement through the site. It was observed that some motorists including powered two wheelers are using Old Coach Road as a cut through to avoid queuing on Ipswich Road. The right turn lane and Bifurcation arrow are incorrect, and some users may enter the right turn lane to then cut back into lane one, there is also a solid white line between the right turn lane and lane one again it is unclear why this has been installed. It is unclear why this arrangement has been laid (see image 1 below). The lane widths for westbound traffic is very wide and may lead to higher traffic speeds. There is Other a lot of sign clutter at the junction mouth for Old Road and some motorists sit further north to at the junction to look through the gap to see if vehicles are travelling east towards them. It was observed that there is significant flow of vehicles and cyclists at shift change for the post office site in Moorside with a number of cyclists contravening the no entry signs and cycling against the one way system on Old Coach Road.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (6 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been five slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary.
Page 3 of 12
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 6 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 5 0 1 6 these consisted of : • Five failure to give-way collisions with two with vehicles pulling into the path of oncoming vehicles from Old Coach Road into East Street, and three collisions with vehicles pulling into the path of oncoming vehicles from Moorside into East Street. • One collision involved a motorist turning right from Moorside and colliding with a pedestrian crossing East Street at the pedestrian refuge
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Vehicles Failing to give way at 0 1 3 0 1 3 junctions.
Page 4 of 12
4.0 Site Photographs (Note images 5 to 8 taken from Google Maps)
View looking east on East Street at right turn lane and solid white line.
View looking west at the junction mouth in Moorside Image 1 – Image 2 –
Page 5 of 12 View looking east on East Street showing parked vehicles outside electrical store and View looking west on East Street (north of the very wide running lane junction with Old Coach Road) showing sign clutter on the pedestrian island. Image 3 – Image 4 –
View looking west from the rail line on East Street
Looking east on East Street showing bifurcation arrow Image 5 – Image 6 –
Page 6 of 12 Looking South on Old Coach Road Looking North on Moorside Image 7 – Image 8 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Investigate if the existing lamp column on Old Coach Road (splitter island) can be relocated from the visibility splay to the rear of the splitter island, and the existing signs (tourist and two-way) moved and remounted on cranked posts.
2: Provide broken new edge of carriageway line on the southern side of East Street past the parking area at the front of the electrical shop to narrow the highway.
3: Burn off the existing give-way lines at the junction mouth of Moorside and relay new give-way line 3.25m from the edge of the right turn lane and tie into the new edge of carriageway lines by the electrical store.
4: Amend the lining for the right turn lane, and hatch out the start of the lane so that vehicles remain in lane 1 then move over into the right turn lane, slowing speeds.
5: Burn off the existing keep clear markings on the east bound lane of East Street and provide two new yellow box junction markings on both sides of East Street to encompass the junction mouths of Moorside and Old Coach Road.
Page 7 of 12 Image 9: Example of junction box at right turn lane
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & £12500 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvements 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 0712/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 8 of 12 Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Failure to giveway at junctions Junction Improvements 18513 44
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Page 9 of 12 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 10 of 12 Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 11 of 12 Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 12 of 12 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A1016 Westway / Robjohns Road, Chelmsford District: Chelmsford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 200
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A1016 Westway
Robjohns Road
A1016 Westway
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A1016 Westway / Robjohns Road Grid Reference 569370 205500 Westway is subject to a 40mph speed limit. Robjohns Road is subject to a Speed Limit 30mph speed limit. Street Lit Yes Carriageway type 3-arm signalised junction Gradient Generally flat Traffic Signalised junction, with no pedestrian phases. Indicative right phase for Management / the northern arm and indicative left phase for the eastern arm of the Existing Traffic junction. Calming Utilities Present Signals equipment , including controller box and traffic loops. Existing TRO’s None known/none affected
Page 1 of 8 Carriageway condition appears in relatively good condition, no significant Road Surface defects noted. SCRIM data for 2017/18 indicates that the southbound and northbound approaches to the junction are ‘below investigatory’. Signing Direction signing on northbound approach to junction. Road Markings Road markings are in good condition and visible throughout the site. Visibility No issues with visibility observed. Westway is tree lined, but these are not causing an issue and will not be Vegetation affected by the proposed scheme. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to No. an existing TRO or Speed Limit
During the site inspection, it was noted that the traffic loop appeared to be in the wrong location for vehicles travelling southbound along A1016 Westway, intending to turn right into Robjohns Road. A number of vehicles were observed waiting to turn right along Westway within the Other junction, but not positioned on the traffic loop. As a result, the right turn phase was not called and the signals changed to red before vehicles proceeded right across the junction. Right turning vehicles along Westway were also observed to turn through small gaps in opposing traffic during the green phase.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 5 0 1 9
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Southbound vehicles turning 0 1 3 0 1 6 right from Westway into Robjohns Road colliding with northbound vehicles along Westway.
Page 2 of 8
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Southbound approach along Image 2 – Looking at Robjohns Road arm from Westway Road (current loop position for right Westway turning traffic highlighted in red)
Image 3 – Westway; looking northbound Image 4 – Westway; looking northbound towards junction across to Robjohns Road
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Relocate traffic signal loop within carriageway for right turning vehicles further south into junction, to a point where waiting vehicles will activate the right turn phase.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & Construction £6,500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure
Page 3 of 8 Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Signal improvement 22%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
None None
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 4 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Haven’t these signals just been replaced by the adjacent developer?
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/17
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent:
Page 5 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date
proposal sent: G
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: DM/215/N45 Britvic Development Westway currently on site. Works substantially complete however RSA3 to be requested imminently. There are concerns regarding the operation of the new site and access from Westway into Westway service road. During construction works the signal loops were damaged and repair works are due to be completed (Essex ITS maintenance team will be completing this work and can confirm programme). For more information please speak to Adjeley Dsane DM project engineer.
Comments provided by: Date: 29/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 6 of 8 If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A133 Spring Lane Roundabout District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 202
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Spring Lane A12
A133 Cymberline Way
Page 1 of 11 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) Spring Lane Roundabout Grid Reference 600903/ 225330 Speed Limit 60mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single (A12 is dualled) Roundabout is flat gradient on all approaches. Cymberline Way runs Gradient downhill towards the roundabout west to east Traffic • The site is a major interchange roundabout linking A133 from Management / Colchester to the A12 and to Stanway and The Lexden Areas, Existing Traffic there is significant flow east to north west to the A12 and vice Calming versa. There are pedestrian refuges on all four arms Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway Existing TRO’s For the speed limit and clear way The road surface is polished. There is SCRIM data available for the area for 2017/2018 showing that the approaches are sound condition with predominantly blue and green sections for the area investigated. The circulatory is showing red however SCRIM data is normally poor on roundabouts.
Road Surface
• Clear Way Signs • Chevrons on Roundabout • 606 signs on the roundabout Signing • 30mph terminal signs on Spring lane • Weight limit blue backed signs for bridge north of the roundabout • National speed limit signs • Cycle Warning sign
Page 2 of 11 • Flag and direction signs for Colchester Town, University and Hospital • Brown tourist signs for local camp site for Cymbeline Way (towards Stanway/ Lexden) • ADS for the roundabout heading east on Cymbeline Way Fair condition stop lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in fair Road Markings condition. Keep clears on roundabout circulatory are quite worn. Visibility • Good on all approaches to the roundabout Vegetation None Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow of traffic. Although the speed limit is deresticted the speeds on the roundabout were not significantly high due to the volume of traffic and deflection on all approaches. The roundabout circulatory is very wide, but this is to be expected on a major roundabout. It was observed that there is a relatively high number of cyclists using the area, however there is little infrastructure other than the cycleway on the northern side of Cymbeline Way running from Spring Lane Roundabout towards Other Colchester. There is footway provision on the southern half of the roundabout.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (8 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been six slight and two serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. Two loss of control collisions occurred in the wet.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 8 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 2 6 0 2 7 these consisted of : • Three, Failure to give way to cyclists on roundabout circulatory • One side swipes on circulatory with motorists and one with a cyclist and one with a powered two wheeler • Two loss of control
Page 3 of 11 collisions on circulatory • One nose to tail collision
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Collisions between Motorists 0 2 2 0 2 2 with Cyclists and Powered two wheelers. Three pedal cycle collisions occurred on the northern west quadrant of the roundabout and resulted in road users entering from the off slip colliding with pedal cyclists already on the circulatory.
Page 4 of 11
4.0 Site Photographs (Note all images taken from Google Maps due to low winter sun)
View looking east on A133 Cymbeline way (junction for Colchester Camp site to the left of the Image) View looking South East on the A12 Slip Image 1 – Image 2 –
View looking west on A133 Cymbeline Way View looking South on Spring Lane Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 5 of 11 Screen Shot of roundabout with red circles showing recommended locations of route carriageway text Image 5 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
Improve Lane discipline on Roundabout circulatory
1: Provide lane destination markings on the roundabout circulatory demarking A133 towards Stanway for lane one (for the southern half of the roundabouts lane one and refresh markings on lane one on the eastern approach of Cymbeline Way). Provide lane destination markings for Lane two demarking A12 (for the southern half of the roundabout lane two and refresh markings for lane two on the eastern approach). See Image 5 above.
Encourage cyclists to use off carriageway facilities
2: Undertake a survey of cyclists and pedestrians for the route recommended for shared use conversion. Shown in Image 5 below.
3: If pedestrian numbers are low, provide new dropped kerbing and cycle scoop on the eastbound lane of Cymbeline Way within the vicinity of the Colchester Camp site entrance.
4: Convert existing footway to shared Cycle way (between 1.5m wide and 2.5m) on north/ western side of Cymbeline way, and on the southern half of the footway on The Spring Lane roundabout and tie into the existing cycle path on the eastern section of Cymbeline Way. Complete with Tactile paving and signing at the intersections of the shared cycleway and existing footway. (See Image 6 below). This element may need widening if there is a likelihood of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians due to limited width, however if there is low pedestrian footfall it is expected that conflict between cyclists and pedestrians would be very low.
Page 6 of 11 Image 6: Recommended area to be converted to shared cycleway (shown in red)
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & £42500 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Lane destination markings/ new cycle 62% infrastructure/ Road Improvement
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 07/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 13/12/2017
Page 7 of 11
Appendix A: FYRR
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Collisions between Motorists with Lane destination markings/ 15882 62 Cyclists and Powered two wheelers new cycle infrastructure/ Road Improvement
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A
Page 8 of 11 If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Page 9 of 11
P
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] (SM01) [email protected] (SM02) [email protected] (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 10 of 11 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 11 of 11 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A176 Uppermayne jw A1321 District: Basildon Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 204
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A176 Uppermayne
A1321 Broadmayne
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A176 Uppermayne Grid Reference 570024,188583 The speed limit is 50mph on A176 Upper Mayne to a point approximately 50m in advance of the roundabout, then 40mph which covers all of the Speed Limit roundabout circulatory along with the A1321 Broadmayne and A176 Roundacre.
Yes - Street lighting present and lit at time of the collision.
There are two lines of large mature trees along the A176 Upper Mayne Street Lit central reservation and others along the nearside verge and there is a chance that the canopies of these trees block street lighting from reaching all parts of the carriageway.
Carriageway type Dual carriageway Gradient Northwest to south-east slight downward gradient Traffic Management / None Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes Existing TRO’s None
Page 1 of 10 Road Surface
There is a roundabout Advance Directional map type sign (ADS) approximately 80m in advance of the roundabout give way line, shown in. This is visible. There is a sign to TSRGD Diag. 877 on the offside of the carriageway approximately 60m in advance of the ADS. This sign indicates which lane each exit can be reached from. Normal practice would be to place the sign after the ADS so motorists know where the exits lead to. At this site, the three lanes shown on the sign do not develop until the ADS 60m downstream. There is also a town centre parking variable message sign (VMS) on the Signing offside and a facilities stack directional sign on the nearside, both approximately 30-40m from the give way line, also shown in Site
These signs are considered to be too close to the roundabout, and the stack type sign not wholly appropriate for a roundabout.
On the roundabout central island there is one triple chevron sign placed to the right hand side of the circulate left sign to TSRGD Diag. 606 (the Diag. 606 was knocked over during the collision, as was that on the Broadmayne approach).
• Centre line markings are slightly worn • Edge of carriageway markings Road Markings • Bifurcation arrow to new access • Lane destination names and arrows on roundabout approach
It is not apparent, until a motorist has seen the ADS, that a roundabout is ahead. In a rural location where the speed limit is above 40mph and just the roundabout has street lighting, the lighting can be seen from some distance depending upon the topography, highlighting the presence of the junction, but at this site all of A176 Upper Mayne is lit and the trees can obscure the wider view ahead. Also the road bends to the left. Whilst it is Visibility possible to see the mound of the roundabout central island and circulating traffic prior to the ADS, this provides the first information that there is a roundabout approaching, but the approach deflection and stack sign mean you cannot see the chevron and sign to Diag. 606 on the roundabout until around 80m in advance.
Yes – visibility along the southbound nearside approach, obscures the Vegetation exiting destination signing (image 2)
Page 2 of 10 There are two lines of large mature trees along the A176 Upper Mayne central reservation and others along the nearside verge and there is a chance that the canopies of these trees block street lighting from reaching all parts of the carriageway.
Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
A176 Upper Mayne is an urban dual carriageway with a posted 50mph speed limit. Whilst sight lines and horizontal curvature are not known, there is nothing to restrict motorists to 50mph other than 50mph repeater signs, and there are few properties, residential or commercial, visible from the road.
The combination of deflection to the left; the stack sign on the nearside approx. 30m in advance of the roundabout, and the position and layout of the sign assembly on the roundabout central island may mean the chevron sign is not visible from a distance equal to the Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance which for 50mph (85kph) is 160m. Other The trees are obscuring some of the signs on the approach to the roundabout.
The stack sign would more commonly be used at a crossroads rather than roundabout. A second roundabout map type sign showing facilities would better represent the layout.
The give way markings onto the roundabout are difficult to see over/on top of a crest.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 1 1 3 1 2 3
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT South-east bound loss of 1 1 1 1 2 1 control collisions (3 collisions)
4.0 Site Photographs
Page 3 of 10 Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
Image 5 -
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures Additional chevron signs to TSRGD Diag. 515 are required on the roundabout central island so that they can be seen in both lanes from 160m in advance of the roundabout. If this cannot be achieved then an appropriate visibility splay should be created across the inside of the curve on the northern side of the road.
Vegetation on the nearside needs to be cut back and the canopy raised, to give visibility to
Page 4 of 10 signs and the roundabout.
The directional signs on approach to the roundabout are too close to the junction, but the left turn lane for the development means they cannot be located further from the roundabout in the nearside verge.
However the stack sign in (circled in image 5) should be replaced with a map type sign, mounted out of forward visibility sight lines and at 2.1m and the trees cut back from around it, but in a location with adequate forward visibility to it.
The posted speed limit is 50mph so consideration needs to be given to passive safety.
The approach to the roundabout, and the circulatory area should be added to the surfacing programme on the basis of the poor SCRIM values.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Design and Implementation: £31500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Package of Measures 42%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Rd Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 5 of 10 First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Non Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or greater
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £2,118,444 £253,984 £28,270 Collisions treated 1 1 1 Casualties treated 1 2 1 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £31,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 42
%FYRR fatal 807 %FYRR serious 97 %FYRR slight 11 Total % FYRR 915
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.26 or 0.36 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 1.68 or 0.48 each year
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A
Page 6 of 10 If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments: The new development (Broadhurst Place) should have revisited the signs on the approach to the roundabout, in fact (based on Google) the only change was the loss of the nearside lane discipline direction sign. A new ADS prior to this junction (including the junction) would give drivers more of a chance to be in the correct lane if combined with the other proposals, it would create more room for the Local ADS to be placed prior to the roundabout to allow drivers to get in the correct lane.
Comments provided by: Date: 18/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
No, however, there is a surface dressing proposal for 18/19 for both SE and NE bound dual carriageways – scheme 180574 which stops approximately 80m short of the A1321 roundabout junction. The existing surface is in good condition but will benefit from crack and patch repairs over the 3 lanes to the roundabout to facilitate a High Friction Surface treatment (approx. 784m2) – this will require funding from the skid resistance budget (approx. £22k). From a visual inspection the roundabout is considered to be in fair condition with some minor rutting and small areas requiring a patch repair. Although yellow on scrim, scrim data collected for roundabouts does not always provide true results.
Comments provided by: Date: 22/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 7 of 10 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I have had a look over these and can’t see a problem with these as they are on major routes around Basildon and very unlikely to be running into an LHP scheme Comments provided by: Date: 15/11/2017
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) Date
Page 8 of 10 [email protected] sent:
Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 10 Page 10 of 10 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1022 Maldon Road District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 213
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
B1022 Maldon Road
Roundbush Road
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1022 Maldon Road/ Roundbush Road Grid Reference 592785/ 219175 Speed Limit Derestricted Street Lit No Carriageway type Single The site is a sweeping bend with a junction on it, the route runs downhill Gradient east to west Traffic Management / • None Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway Existing TRO’s None The road surface is polished and rutted (see image below). There is no SCRIM data available for the area for 2017/2018. There is scanner data showing that the approaches are sound condition with predominantly blue and green sections for the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Junction on Bend Warning Sign for east and west Signing • Directional sign for Layer Marney • Marker posts Fair condition give-way lines, centre lining, Slow markings, and edge of Road Markings carriageway lines are all in fair condition. • Good from the Roundbush junction mouth, forward visibility is Visibility reduced in either direction on Maldon Road due to the bend. Hedge and trees on both sides, little vegetation to the south west of the Vegetation Roundbush Road Junction. Highway Yes / No Is the scheme within Yes / No
Page 2 of 9 Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a severe amount of rutting to the westbound lane, although there is scanner data it is recommended that an ad-hoc scrim survey is undertaken to ascertain if the rutting is a contributing factor to the collision pattern. It was observed on site that there is significant debris on the road it maybe that this is being washed down the road from the quarry site north east of the bend. The existing drainage infrastructure is in poor repair, the grips need re cutting and the gulley offlets are all blocked. The local alignment for a mile in either Other direction is very twisty and the ‘s’ bends to the west have already had remedial measures installed.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (7 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been six slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. Five loss of control collisions occurred in the wet.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 7 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 6 0 1 14 these consisted of : • One, Failure to give way, a motorist turning right pulled out from Roundbush Road into the path of an oncoming vehicle on Maldon Road • Six loss of control collisions with motorists negotiating the bend. Two number collisions are single vehicle Collison heading west, four are vehicles west bound losing control and colliding with a vehicle in the opposing direction. Five of these
Page 3 of 9 occurred I the wet.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Westbound road users - Loss 0 1 4 0 1 4 of control collisions in the wet
4.0 Site Photographs (Note all images taken from Google Maps due to low winter sun)
View looking north on Round Bush Road at the junction
View looking East on Maldon Road Image 1 – Image 2 –
View looking at rutted westbound carriageway View looking west on Maldon Road Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 4 of 9 View looking at existing kerb offlet that is View looking at existing grip (in northern blocked in northern kerb line. verge) that needs re-cutting Image 5 – Image 6 -
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Undertake an Ad hoc scrim survey, and liaise with the surfacing team to establish if the bend can be resurfaced to remove the rutting issue.
2: Undertake a topo survey and establish where the low spots in the carriageway are, provide new section of kerbing on the approach to the bend through to the junction mouth on the southern side of Maldon Road, install a new gulley offlet in the low spot in the new kerb run pipe new system into ditch south of the carriageway.
3: Extend the existing kerb run on the northern side of Maldon Road and replace the existing grip with a gulley offlet and pipe into local ditch north of the carriageway.
4: Provide 3 x individual chevron signs in each direction 6 in total on the bend, ensuring they are outside the junction visibility splay.
5: Provide white Glasdon junction marker posts complete with reflective banding in each verge at the junction mouth of Roundbush Road.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & £20500 Construction
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Page 5 of 9 Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Resurfacing 46%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 08/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 09/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Loss of control collisions Resurfacing, drainage 13810 46 improvments, new signing
Page 6 of 9 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 7 of 9 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 9 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1022 Maldon Road Junction with Warren Lane District: Colchester Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 214
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Warren Lane
B1022 Maldon Site located at grid Road ref 594712/ 222038
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1022 Maldon Road and Warren Lane Grid Reference 594712/ 222038 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Slight incline running downhill when heading south Traffic Management / • None Existing Traffic Calming Yes overhead cables on the verge side and utility chambers in the verge Utilities Present and junction island. Existing TRO’s For the 30mph speed limit, Good condition at the junction mouth. However there is some damage at the right turn, and some of the road studs are missing. There is no SCRIM data available for the area, however there is B class road Scanner data available for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Yes junction warning signs on three approaches to the junction • Yes ADS on the southern approach on Warren Lane • Chevron signs on the western verge • Individual chevrons on central island • 30mph and Derestriction Terminal signs on Warren Lane • A12 flag directional sign on central island Signing • 30mph and 50mph Terminal signs on Maldon Road • No entry signs • 606 keep over Blue backed sign • Advanced directional sign for A12 for westbound motorists on Maldon Road • Junction on bend warning sign
Page 2 of 9 Yes, giveway markings, there are slow road markings on the approaches, Road Markings and centre line, there is hatching for the central island. The edge lining and arrows at the right turn lane are worn. • Visibility is poor on the approaches when travelling north from Visibility Maldon towards Stanway and/ or Colchester Vegetation Yes there is a grassed verge and hedges within the proximity of the site Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
The area was busy with various motoring types. Due to the curvature of the road there is very poor visibility for right turners turning from B1022 Maldon Road into Warren Lane meaning limited “gap time”. The junction has been amended with a designated left turn lane for motorists heading north from B1022 Maldon Road to Warren Lane, these road users then have to ‘give way’ to any road users who have turned right into Warren Lane from the B1022. Westbound road users (waiting to turn right into Warren Lane) are held at the end of the right turn lane until eastbound road users have passed. It was observed on site that this ‘right turn movement into Warren Lane, is causing issue for motorists turning right, as they are unable to differentiate between motorists heading north into Warren Lane or those heading east remaining on B1022 Maldon Road. Other There is a very clear pattern of collisions at this site which reflects this issue.
This location has been treated previously and measures have included a reduction in speed limit to 30mph, improved lighting, and improved signing. However collisions are still occurring.
Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been seven slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. Three of the collisions occurred during wet/ damp road conditions. One collision occurred in the dark.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT
Page 3 of 9 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 7 0 1 14 these consisted of : • One motorist losing control on Maldon Road. • Seven failure to give- way collisions with right turners heading to Warren lane lane pulling across the path of oncoming motorists.
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT • Westbound road users 0 1 6 0 1 13 turning right into Warren Lane – turning across the path of eastbound road users
4.0 Site Photographs (Note ADS sign images taken from Google Maps)
1 – View looking north on travelling uphill Image 2 – View looking south on Warren Lane towards the junction on B1022 Maldon Road
Page 4 of 9 Image 3 – View looking west on B1022 Image 4 – View looking west along B1022 Maldon Road entering the 30mph limit Maldon Road entering the right turn lane with Warren lane to the right of the image
Image 5 – View looking south east at the Image 6 – Vehicle turning right from B1022 junction on Warren Lane Maldon Road into Warren Lane
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following study is undertaken and should include:
1: Undertake a topo survey of the existing junction.
2: Investigate land ownership and associated costs of purchasing land to the south east of the site.
3: Investigate remedial measures to realign the existing junction removing the left turn slip from Maldon Road into Warren Lane.
4: Investigate removal of the islands, left turn lane and realign the entire junction to a standard t junction north of its existing alignment.
5: Investigate signalisation of the junction and providing an appropriate layout.
Page 5 of 9 6: Investigate the removal of the junction and the installation of a roundabout.
7: Report should include all associated costs for implementing options 3, 4, 5 and 6.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Feasibility Study £8000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvement 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 12/02/2018 Senior Safety Engineer: 12/02/2018
Appendix A: FYRR
FYRR to be calculated once scheme costs have been established.
Page 6 of 9 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date
Page 7 of 9 sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: M01) SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 8 of 9 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1018 Millenium Way District: Braintree Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 216
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Millennium Way
Century Drive
Page 1 of 9 2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1018 Millenium Way Grid Reference 577054/ 222510 Speed Limit 40mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Gradient Level on all approaches Traffic • The site is at a signalised t junction complete with pedestrian Management / crossing phases on two arms Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes within verge and footway For the 40mph speed limit, and clearway including verge parking Existing TRO’s restrictions Good condition for the circulatory. There is no SCRIM data available for the area, however there is B class road Scanner data available for 2017/2018 showing that the route is in good condition with predominantly blue and green sections on the area investigated.
Road Surface
• Direction Signs at the junction • 40mph repeater signs Signing • Clearway signs • Prohibition of parking on verge signs
Fair condition stop lines, centre lining, and central hatching is all in good Road Markings condition, there is a bus stop cage along Century Drive. Visibility • Good on all approaches and at the stop lines. Vegetation The site has localised vegetation within the verge this is all well maintained
Page 2 of 9 Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Yes / No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes / No TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that there is a relatively high number of vehicles with a constant flow of traffic. It was also observed that the main flow is for left turners from B1018 Millennium Way into the retail park (Century Drive), it is unclear if there is still a capacity need to have two straight on lanes for motorists travelling north towards the town centre. It was observed on site that a lot of motorists are failing to wait for the inter green to turn right into Charter Way (see Image 5 below) Other Looking at the three year collision data (01/01/2014 to 01/06/2017) in line with Road Safety Engineering’s cluster analysis criteria (4 personal injury collisions within a 50m radius over a three and a half year period) there has been six slight and one serious severity injury collisions as recorded by Essex Constabulary. All of the collisions occurred during daylight hours.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 Personal Injury Collisions, 0 1 6 0 1 8 these consisted of : • Three nose to tail collisions two north bound one south bound. • Two failure to giveway collisions with right turners heading to the retail area pulling out into the path of north westbound vehicles. • One side swipe collision for one motorists trying to turn left from lane one when travelling north on Millennium Way • One collision between a car and a pedestrian using the crossing facility on millennium
Page 3 of 9 Way
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Southeast bound road users 0 1 1 0 1 1 failing to give way at a right turn facility, and turning right across the path of north-west bound road users.
4.0 Site Photographs (Note ADS sign images taken from Google Maps)
Millennium Way looking south at the existing junction and traffic islands
Charter Way looking east in advance of the signals (showing 40mph terminal sign) Image 1 – Image 2 –
Millennium Way looking north at the existing junction and traffic islands Millennium Way looking south at the existing junction and traffic islands
Image 3 – Image 4 –
Page 4 of 9 Millennium Way looking south at the existing right turn phase following a motorist not waiting for the indicative green arrow in front of the path of an oncoming vehicle. Image 5 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
The Road Safety Engineering Team recommends the following:
1: Undertake a study to Investigate capacity at the junction. If there is sufficient capacity provide a separate right turn phase for the signals complete with new signal head, removing the existing indicative green signal and installing a full signal (complete with three aspects).
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Study Only £10000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) New traffic signals 67%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Page 5 of 9 Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 04/12/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 20/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
FYRR to be calculated following study.
Collision Saving Collision problem Remedial Treatment Average Reduction Cost £ in collisions % Failure to giveway at junctions 40717 18513 67
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A
Page 6 of 9 If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No
Page 7 of 9 works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: (SM01) (SM02) (SM03)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Page 8 of 9 Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 9 of 9 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A1099 Springfield Road/Bond Street RAB District: Chelmsford Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 226
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
A1099 Springfield Bond Road Street
A1099 High Bridge Road
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A1099 High Bridge Road / Springfield Road Grid Reference 571185 206714 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type 4-arm roundabout Gradient Generally flat, with slight fall across site from north to south Traffic Management / None. Existing Traffic Calming Street lighting. Although no other utilities have been included in Utilities Present this report, the site is located close to the city centre and it is therefore assumed that a number of utilities are present
Page 1 of 7 throughout the site. Existing TRO’s Parking restrictions – double yellow lines
Carriageway condition appears in relatively good condition, no Road Surface significant defects noted. SCRIM data shown in adjacent image.
Advanced direction signing on approaches and chevron signs on Signing roundabout circulatory. Road markings are significantly worn through the site and on the Road Markings approaches to the roundabout. There are no markings present within the roundabout circulatory. Visibility Visibility throughout the site is generally good. Vegetation Vegetation does not affect site. Is the scheme Highway Boundary / within Highway Yes No. (*if the land is not highway the scheme Land & Ownership boundary or on should only proceed to feasibility design Check ? land owned by & land acquisition/dedication stage) ECC(*) Does the scheme require change to an existing No. TRO or Speed Limit
The roundabout circulatory is quite wide, with a relatively small roundabout island. The entry and exit lanes are varying widths on Other the roundabout and may lead to inconsistent speeds through the junction.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 8 0 1 8
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 collisions involving 0 1 4 0 1 4 vulnerable road users
Page 2 of 7
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Looking at roundabout circulatory Image 2 – Springfield Road, three-lane entry for High Bridge Road exit, showing wide on to roundabout circulatory
Image 3 – Bond Street; one-lane exit from Image 4 – Exit onto roundabout from shopping roundabout and pedestrian crossing facility area
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Provide lane markings on roundabout circulatory. • Build out splitter islands with hatched road markings for each arm in order to reduce circulatory widths, bringing the give way markings forward.
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Cost – Design & Construction £23,500
Page 3 of 7 7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure
Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Markings 34%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
Physically build out splitter islands and This option is higher cost and will likely not be roundabout island to reduce circulatory justified within the FYRR costings. widths
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017 Senior Safety Engineer: 27/11/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
Page 4 of 7 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Considering the queueing often occurring at this roundabout anything which will reduce capacity is unwelcome, as well as lane marking some lane destination marking/signs would be useful.
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 5 of 7 HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date 28/11/2017 proposal sent: (SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme: No DM works planned at this time. DM/215/S18 Bond Street remedial works to be completed in particular RSA3 actions. I do not expect this to impact on this proposal. Comments provided by: Tara Jowett Date: 29/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 7 Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1014 Essex Way Jw Vicarage Hill District: Castle Point Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 231
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Vicarage Hill
B1014 Essex Way
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1014 Essex Way jw Vicarage Hill Grid Reference 579013,186710 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single Carriageway Steep uphill gradient in northbound direction along Essex Way approach to Gradient Vicarage Hill Traffic Management / Existing Traffic islands with keep left bollards present on both approaches Existing Traffic to the junction with Vicarage Hill. Calming Utilities Present None which affect scheme Existing TRO’s 30mph Limit: Latest SCRIM data indicates a critical level along the NB carriageway Road Surface
Page 1 of 8 • 30mph terminal signing along the northbound approach: • Bend ahead (with side rd junction) present on northbound Signing approach (please see Image 1) • Chevron Signing Present ( as per image 3) • Double white lining system present along northbound approach to Vicarage Hill, which then extends to hatching around the island. • Northbound kick in arrows on the approach to the 30mph terminal signing. Road Markings • 30mph carriageway roundel on the northbound approach to Vicarage Hill (Please see image 2) • Right turn lane present for southwest bound road users along B1014 turning into Vicarage Hill Limited forward visibility for northbound road users along B1014 heading Visibility towards Vicarage Hill, due to the gradient and curvature of the road. Vegetation No issues: Highway Is the scheme within Yes / Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Not Required scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Yes – see remedial measures section: TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 1 9 0 1 11
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 5 x NB loss of control 0 0 5 0 0 5 collisions around the bend. (all loss of control collisions
Page 2 of 8 occurred in wet conditions involving single vehicles)
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures Liaise with Asset Management (Nic Starling) and put forward the bend for remedial resurfacing.
Yellow back the bend ahead warning sign for northbound road users.
Speed Survey directly at the entry of the 30mph section for northbound road users and another speed survey within the 30mph section itself.
Following speed survey results look at Introducing a 40mph buffer zone along the northbound to be positioned prior to entry to the 30mph limit.
30mph carriageway roundel to be removed from current location and repositioned at the terminal location.
‘historic’ New road layout sign ahead sign to be removed.
Page 3 of 8 6.0 Estimate d Costs
DESIGN ONLY £4500
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Package of measures (signing / resurfacing 42% / speed limit adjustment)
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 0 5 Casualties treated 0 0 5 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £4,500.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 42
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 0 %FYRR slight 312 Total % FYRR 312
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.1 or 0.60 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.1 or 0.60 each year
Page 4 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments: Need a speed survey within the existing 30 and one on approach to 30 to determine if 40mph buffer appropriate – will mean a very short speed limit between here & Benfleet Are 30 terminals correct size? 30 Roundel should be removed/ reinstated at speed limit change Remove New Road Layout Ahead sign
Comments provided by: Date: 11/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
A visual inspection was undertaken and the surface was found to be in fair condition – scanner has not highlighted this area for investigation. However, this has met CR site criteria and we have promoted this site for a machine inlay surfacing scheme 225564 – approx. £54k
Comments provided by: Date: 24/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent:
Page 5 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: The sites don’t conflict with any of our existing schemes, obviously Sarah will be able to advise if there is conflict with future schemes. Might be worth checking with Matt V as well on S106 schemes.
Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
That there aren’t any developments currently which would clash with your schemes.
Mark Lawrence at County Hall would know more about what’s coming up in the area.
Page 6 of 8 Comments provided by: r Date: 13/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: A127 WB offslip to A1245 District: Castle Point Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 239
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) A127 Southend Arterial Rd wb off-slip to A1245 Grid Reference 578014,190737 50mph on the slip road, in proximity to the roundabout circulatory the Speed Limit speed limit changes to derestricted Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Dual Carriageway Gradient East to west downward gradient Traffic Management / Traffic Signals present at the bottom of the slip on the roundabout Existing Traffic circulatory. Calming Utilities Present None which will affect scheme Existing TRO’s None which will affect scheme
Page 1 of 8 Latest SCRIM data indicates a sound condition for majority of the offslip with a below investigatory level in close proximity to the roundabout circulatory.
for this section of the A127.
Road Surface
• Lane designation signing (near and offside) (see image 1) • Primary Route ADS sign on the offside, • Traffic signals ahead warning signs (with distance sub plate) Signing present on near and offside. (see Image 2) • Primary route direction sign on nearside approach to traffic signals. (see image 3) Road Markings Lane Destination arrows & text / and ‘Slow’ markings. Visibility Vegetation Highway Is the scheme within Yes / No Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the Not Required scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing No TRO or Speed Limit
Other
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 0 10 0 0 13
Page 2 of 8 Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site 8 x westbound nose to tail FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT collisions along the slip road approach to traffic signals (3 were detailed as occurring is heavy / stationary traffic) 0 0 8 0 0 9
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – Image 2 –
Image 3 – Image 4 –
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
• Install 300/200/100 yds countdown signing • Provide higher signal mast arrangement (or an additional signal head) on 6m poles for the nearside and offside primary signals.
Page 3 of 8 6.0 Estimate d Costs
Design Only £16000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Package of measures 42%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
NA – design only
Page 4 of 8 Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Tim Olley Date: 11/12/2017
Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme: Possible scheme merge with CR site 151- site visit required to determine extents.
Comments provided by: Date: 24/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: The sites don’t conflict with any of our existing schemes, obviously Sarah will be able to advise if there is conflict with future schemes. Might be worth checking with Matt V as well on S106 schemes.
Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Page 5 of 8 Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Comments provided by: Date:
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
• In my experience a key issue here is traffic cutting in from the right hand lane to the left. T • his starts as far back as Rayleigh Weir when traffic (in the AM peak) moves into the right hand lane to avoid slower traffic in the left lane caused by traffic merging from the slip road. • The left lane moves slower continuously from this point down to A1245 slip. • Along this length vehicles use the faster moving right hand lane to make progress before trying to find a suitable gap to move left. This slows the left lane further and causes driver frustration (you’ll often see tailgating to stop a vehicle filtering in). • Vehicles use both lanes to turn left onto the A1245/ A130 link. • If you could create two lanes on the slip sooner this would increase traffic flow from the A127 and ease traffic (at least until the traffic from the lights back up). • However be aware there is a pedestrian/ cycle crossing at the top of this slip which you often see cyclists trying to get across in the morning or evening. • You may also want to consider adding lane destination arrows further back up the slip road.
Comments provided by: Date: 14/11/2017
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent:
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’
Page 6 of 8 If ‘YES’ state which scheme: there aren’t any developments currently which would clash with your schemes.
County Hall would know more about what’s coming up in the area.
Comments provided by: Susan Anker Date: 13/11/2017
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A
Page 7 of 8 Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 8 of 8 Site Report Essex Highways Casualty ReductionDate Site April Report 201 8/19 Date April 2007
Locat ion: B1464 London Rd jw Pound Lane District: Basildon Collision Investigation Period: 01/01/2014 – 30/06/2017 Site Ranking: 289
1.0 Site Plan with Collision Plot
Pound Lane
B1464 London Rd
2.0 Site Description & Observations
Details Description/Observations Road Name (s) B1464 London Road/ Pound Lane Grid Reference 575675,188345 Speed Limit 30mph Street Lit Yes Carriageway type Single carriageway Gradient Downhill gradient on both approaches of the B1464 towards the junction Traffic Management / Signalised Junction / yellow box marking Existing Traffic Calming Utilities Present Yes Existing TRO’s None Visual Inspection indicated a poor surface condition, red infill surfacing on various approaches was worn. Road Surface No SCRIM survey data available. There is no advanced signing of the junction ahead. The Keep Left Signing bollards present on the islands are in a poor condition. Road Markings B1464 London Road markings are in a poor condition. Pound Lane
Page 1 of 7 markings look as if they have been recently resurfaced Visibility There is good visibility of the junction in all directions. Vegetation No issues. Highway Is the scheme within Yes Boundary / Land Highway boundary or (*if the land is not highway the No scheme should only proceed to & Ownership on land owned by feasibility design & land Check ? ECC(*) acquisition/dedication stage) Does the scheme require change to an existing Potentially TRO or Speed Limit
It was observed on site that the posted speed limit is 30mph, however the Other nature and environment of the B1464, the location feels more like a 40mph stretch.
3.0 Pers onal Injury Collision Analysis
Cluster Site Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Information FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT 0 0 5 0 0 8
Identified Collision COLLISIONS CASUALTIES Pattern(s) at Cluster Site FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT FATAL SERIOUS SLIGHT Westbound road users turning 0 0 5 0 0 8 right across the path of eastbound road users.
4.0 Site Photographs
Image 1 – B1464 westbound approach Image 2 – B1464 – right turn filter into Pound Lane
Page 2 of 7 Image 3 – Pound Lane southbound approach Image 4 – B1464 junction with Pound Lane to junction
5.0 Recommendation s
Remedial Measures
Lane 1 signalled for ahead movement only and lane 2 separately signalled for the right turn movement only. This would ensure that vehicles on London Road eastbound are held on red whilst vehicles turn right into Pound Lane.
The impact on capacity should be considered in the event that introducing these measures could lead to increased queuing on London Road in both directions
6.0 Estimate d Costs
Total Scheme Design & Implementation: £ 13,000
7.0 Predicted Collision Cost Saving from remedial measure Remedial Measures Reduction in Collisions (RoSPA) Junction Improvements 44%
8.0 Other engineering options for consideration
NA
9.0 Scheme Approval
Safety Engineering Team: Tel No. Date Senior Safety Engineer: 15/12/2017
Page 3 of 7 Design Manager: 15/12/2017
Appendix A: FYRR
First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) Calculation: Built Up Rds (other than Motorways) with Speed Limit of 40mph or Less
% FYRR = Annual Collision Savings x 100 Scheme Cost
Assumptions: Fatal Serious Slight Average annual collision cost (£) £1,972,683 £225,227 £23,421 Collisions treated 0 0 5 Casualties treated 0 0 8 Investigation time period (years) 3.5 Estimated cost of recommended remedial measures (including Design, Audit and Traffic Management)
As per recommendations in Section 6 £13,000.00
Collision saving produced by proposed treatment (%) 44
%FYRR fatal 0 %FYRR serious 0 %FYRR slight 113
Total % FYRR 113
Number of collisions that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 2.2 or 0.63 each year Number of casualties that would not have occurred had the remedial actions been implemented at the start of the collision period 3.52 or 1.01 each year
Appendix B: VALIDATION
Validation Network Assurance (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) [email protected] sent: Is the proposal against policy: Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which Policy:
Is the scheme against guidance Yes No N/A If ‘YES’ state which guidance:
Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Comments provided by: Date: 18/12/2017
Page 4 of 7 Asset Management comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any Yes No other planned and/or resurfacing work? If ‘YES’ state which scheme: No, however, please be advised there is a surface dressing proposal for 18-19 to both sides of the signalised junction but nothing planned for the junction area and approaches themselves, although they are showing signs of slight rutting the general condition is fair and resurfacing not considered to be required in the near future. Note: We have requested that the lining to the signalised junction will be refreshed at the same time as the lining for the surface dressing scheme
Comments provided by: Date: 22/11/2017
Design Team Leader (Comment required for EVERY Date proposal) sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Happy to sign the forms off to say that the design team leader has looked at the schemes. Obviously there are no shocks for me after our site visits.
Comments provided by: Date: 13/11/2017
HLO (Comment required for EVERY proposal) Date sent: Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
I have had a look over these and can’t see a problem with these as they are on major routes around Basildon and very unlikely to be running into an LHP scheme Comments provided by: Date: 15/11/2017
MAJOR PROJECTS comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: [email protected] [email protected]
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Page 5 of 7 Comments provided by: Date:
DEVELOPMENT MGMT comment required for EVERY Date proposal sent: SM01)
Does the proposed CR scheme conflict with any other planned work? Then an ‘if YES state which Yes No works’ If ‘YES’ state which scheme:
Comments provided by: Date:
Street Lighting (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A If Yes - Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments: Included in Street Lighting Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Passenger Transport (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Passenger Transport Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date:
Page 6 of 7 Public Rights of Way (Consult if required) [email protected] Date sent: Yes N/A Agreement to Scheme Proposal: Yes No Comments:
Included in Public Rights of Way Annual programme Yes No
Comments provided by: Date: ESSEX HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING SOLUTION:
Page 7 of 7