DOCSLIB.ORG

Td16/93 Review of Roundabout Standard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Td16/93 Review of Roundabout Standard N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n May 2005 d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o Principal Scientist, TRL n n f f e e r r Presented by Janet Kennedy e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 Accidents at roundabouts 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 International review of design Review of Standard Consultation with practitioners Accident study Consider provision for non-motorised users Develop a hierarchical approach Revise Standard 0 0 0 0 5 5 • • • • • • • D D R R A A Project for UK Highways Agency on geometric design of roundabouts F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T A typical four-arm roundabout in the UK N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T A typical three-arm roundabout in the UK N N n circulatory a a o t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n Easier to construct Drainage More conspicuous central island No crown line c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Emphasis on safety rather than capacity Roundabouts smaller than in UK Single or double lane designs Limited flaring Outward-sloping crossfall carriageway R R A A Review of design in other countries • • • • • F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n n the UK a a i l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Typical crossfall F F T T £52,000 £78,800 £34,600 Average accident cost 8% N N 15% 14% 15% a a serious t t i i o o % fatal and n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o No. of u u 85,000 18,700 111,000 214,000 £61,100 t t accidents C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A All roads Roundabouts Other junctions Non-junction F F T T Personal injury accidents in 2003 N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n junction accident injury accident f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Higher flows / multiple lanes in the UK Difference in definition of: Cultural differences Main UK study is old (1984) Accident rates from current UK study are for high flow roundabouts only R R A A Differences between countries when comparing accidents at roundabouts • • • • • F F T T .23 .51 .77 0.1 1.5 0.6 0 0 1 Accident frequency 2.36 to 4.38 6 5 4 84 9 11 N N 290 1162 a a 12,000 t t i i o o Number of n n roundabouts a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c -arm only) e e 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Comparison of accident frequencies (injury accidents per year) Country Australia France New Zealand UK (old – UK (current ) The Netherlands US F F T T ) r a e y r s pe N s N m t r a a n t t a e i i f o o d i n n o a c r a l c e l R R a b ( o o m y u u n n Nu nc d d a a ue b b q o o u e u r t t f C C o o nt 3456 n n f f de e e i r r c e e c n n A c c e e 2 2 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0 0 y c n e u eq r f t n e cid c A 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Accident frequency as a function of number of arms at the roundabout F F T T 9.3% 7.1% Severity 2.65 Dual cway roads N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o 0.63 1.28 1.08 u u cway roads n n Single d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f 326 649 e e sites r No. of r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 4 D D R R arms No. of A A Accident frequency (injury accidents per year) by type of road F F T T 6 4 8 3 4-8 2-16 Rate 21-37 53-162 4 4 - - N N 4 8 11 179 182 a a t t i i o o Number of n n roundabouts a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n igh flow) f f e e h r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Australia France Germany (includes damage only) UK (old) UK (current – Sweden US Comparison of accident rates (injury accidents per 100 million vehicle-km) Country F F T T N N a a t t i i o ) o n n i a a G l l R R i o o g u u n ∑ n d d a a b b o o u u exp( t t C C β β 2 2 o o n n Q Q f f e e α α r r e e 1 1 α n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 A = kQ A = k Q A = k Q D D and layout variables: R R A A Accident models Accident frequency on each arm related to flow or These models were extended to include geometric F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Entry path curvature (deflection) Entry width and approach Inscribed circle diameter Central island diameter Proportion of motorcycles Angle with next arm Approach curvature (Visibility) R R A A Variables affecting safety • • • • • • • • F F T T 0 9 6 3 20 1 25 100 ‘Conventional’ N N a a t t i i o o n n 0 8 4 7 a a 71 1 l l Small R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Single vehicle Approaching Entering-circulating Other vehicle Pedestrian Total 100 Percentage of injury accidents by type at 4-arm UK roundabouts F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 oach is downhill 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Appr Problem with vehicles over shooting Danger of vehicle reaching motorway below R R A A North Lincolnshire roundabout Roundabout with single vehicle accident problem • • • F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R Circulatory carriageway cannot be seen Chevrons appear to be on splitter island People mark possible delineation effect of reflective marker posts A A Roundabout with single vehicle accident problem F F • • • T T .5 .0 9.3 9 8 7.1 22.6 1 Severity N N a a .8 t t 4.4 i i o 8.0 9.3 2 o 1 76.7 n n a a l l R R o o u u % of accidents n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e Cars 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 Pedestrians Vehicle type Motorcycles Pedal cycles D D R R A A % involvement by vehicle type F F Large goods vehicles T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e Low flow, compact design Underpass Cycle lane on roundabout Cycle path with crossings r r e e n n c c e e Relative involvement rate high Move against new roundabouts? Experienced v novice cyclists Cycles mix with other vehicles Cycle facilities 2 2 0 0 • • • • • 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Pedal cyclists at roundabouts F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o in Calais with outer cycle path n n cyclist f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 mixes with traffic rides in centre of lane 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Novice / cautious cyclist on outer cycle path Experienced R R A A • • F F T T Roundabout N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Cycle lane on circulatory carriageway F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A UK roundabout in York with cycle lane F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Eye-level view of UK roundabout in York with cycle lane F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 Splitter island Uncontrolled crossing (zebra) Signal controlled crossing Subway / overbridge Zebra crossing at 5 to 20m Signal controlled crossing at 20m or >60m 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Small proportion of accidents (but high severity) Pedestrian facility Optimum location of crossing from roundabout Flaring and geometric delay R R A A Pedestrians at roundabouts • • • • F F T T stoke N N sing a a t t i i Ba o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts F F T T Brent / Harrow N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 Long straight high speed approach Inadequate entry deflection Low circulating flow past an entry Excessive visibility to the right Significant tightening of turn radius partway round the roundabout Crown lines D D R R A A • • • • • • F F T T Overturning of large goods vehicles t urban a N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D New design hierarchy New compact design with single lane entry Greater emphasis on provision for non- motorised Allow outward-sloping crossfall roundabouts on single-carriageway roads At dual-carriageway roundabouts limit visibility to right until vehicles within 15m of give way line R R A A Possible changes to UK Standard • • • • • F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Signalised roundabout with through traffic on main road across central island R R A A Hamburger (‘through-about’) F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D Signalised roundabout with through traffic on both roads across central island R R A A Hot cross bun (‘double-through-about’) F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o n n f f e e r r e e n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A A look back in time! F F T T N N a a t t i i o o n n a a l l R R o o u u n n d d a a b b o o u u t t C C o o Tel: +44 (0)1344 770953 n n Email: [email protected] f f e e r r Presented by Janet Kennedy e e End of Presentation n n c c e e 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 D D R R A A F F T T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impact Assessment
    Title: Impact Assessment (IA) Raising the speed limit for HGVs >7.5T on dual carriageway roads IA No: DfT00280 Date: 23/09/2014 Lead department or agency: Stage: Final Department for Transport Source of intervention: Domestic Other departments or agencies: Type of measure: Primary legislation None Contact for enquiries: [email protected] Summary: Intervention and Options RPC Opinion: EANCB Validated Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option Total Net Present Business Net Net cost to business per In scope of One-In, Measure qualifies as Value Present Value year (EANCB on 2009 prices) Two-Out? £0m £0m £0m Yes Zero net cost What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? On dual carriageways the speed limit for HGVs>7.5T is 50 mph. The average actual speed at which these HGVs travel in free flow conditions (when they are not held up by other traffic or obstructions such as junctions, hills or bends) is about 53 mph (excludes rigid 2 axle HGVs)1. More than 80% of HGVs exceed 50 mph in free-flow conditions. The limit is out of date and systematically ignored by professional HGV drivers. The proposal is to raise the speed limit on dual carriageway roads for these vehicles to 60mph, which would better reflect the capabilities of modern HGVs. Government intervention is necessary because speed is regulated by government, through speed limits, in order to balance the private benefits of speed of travel with the social costs and risks (such as related to safety) of high speeds. What are the policy objectives and the intended effects? The intention is to modernise the speed limit, improve compliance, make the limit more credible and legitimise the behaviour of professional drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabouts Applying the 'System'
    Roundabouts Applying the 'System' to Roundabouts Let us suppose that you are on a dual carriageway approaching a roundabout (400m away). You are currently in the left lane and you intend to turn right at the roundabout. Information: - Take - You see the roundabout and its triangular warning signs in the distance. There are no vehicles between you and the roundabout but you see vehicles on the roundabout. Mirror check. There are two vehicles behind, both in the left lane. - Use - You know that you have to change to the right lane and that you will need to signal to change lane and then to signal continuously on the approach and through the roundabout (the standard Highway Code procedure for turning right at a roundabout)- Give - After checking your mirrors you signal right to the vehicles behind. Position: The right signal remains on for a few seconds and then gradually you move to the right hand lane (Information-Use/Give). When the manoeuver is complete you cancel the signal. After a few more seconds the right signal is re-applied to confirm to the drivers behind that you intend to turn right at the roundabout. Information: The speed and position of the vehicles behind are monitored as you approach the roundabout. An assessment is made of the movement of vehicles on the roundabout and those approaching it from the right and left. You look over the roundabout to see, if possible, vehicles approaching it from the opposite direction (Information-Take). Speed: As you approach the roundabout you begin to brake and lose speed smoothly and progressively (Information-Give).
    [Show full text]
  • Type 1 Single Carriageway Pavement Detail A
    A1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P DESIGN REPORT 1 Notes: 1. This Drawing is only to be used for the Design Element identified in the title box. All other information shown on the drawing is to be considered indicative only. 2. These drawings are to be read in conjunction with all other relevant design drawings. 3. All dimensions are in (m) & are typical dimensions which are subject to requirements for visibility & curve widening. 2 3 3.00(MIN.) VARIES 3.00 2.50 7.30 2.50 3.00 VARIES VARIES 3.00 (MIN) VERGE HARD CARRIAGEWAY HARD VERGE SHOULDER 3.65 3.65 SHOULDER TRAFFIC TRAFFIC 1.00 LANE LANE FENCE LINE ROUNDING 0.50 VERGE LINE CONCRETE CHANNEL 1.00 1.00 CUT LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FENCE LINE 4 1.00 RCD/500/22 ROUNDING ROUNDING 0.10 TOPSOIL ROUNDING NORMAL CROSS NORMAL CROSS 0.50 0.50 FALL FALL TOE OF 1 5% VERGE LINE EMBANKMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS 3 ON EARTHWORKS, 1 1 1 1 SEALED CARRIER DRAIN 5 5 5 5 REFER TO THE A EARTHWORKS SERIES 600 CUT CONDITION FILL CONDITION 1 0.10 TOPSOIL 0.75 3 VARIES FIN OR NARROW FOR FURTHER DETAILS FILTER DRAIN ON ROAD EDGE DRAINAGE TYPES, (WHERE REQUIRED) FOR FURTHER DETAILS REFER TO THE DRAINAGE SERIES 500 5 ON EARTHWORKS, REFER TO THE VARIES EARTHWORKS SERIES 600 UNLINED INTERCEPTOR DRAIN WHERE REQUIRED TYPE 1 SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY SCALE 1:100 (A1) 6 7 PAVEMENT DETAIL A Type A: N6 Type Single Carriageway.
    [Show full text]
  • User Manual for the Highways Agency's Routine Maintenance Management System
    RMMS MANUAL __________________________________________________ User Manual for the Highways Agency's Routine Maintenance Management System Copies available from:- Highways Agency Operations Support Division St Christopher House Southwark Street LONDON SE1 OTE Tel: 0171-921-3971 Fax: 0171-921-3878 Price £50.00 per copy © Crown Copyright 1996 HIGHWAYS AGENCY RMMS MANUAL CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Part 1: SURVEY 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Network Referencing 1.3 Survey Procedure Part 2: INVENTORY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Surface Options 2.3 Carriageway 2.4 Footways and Cycle Tracks 2.5 Covers, Gratings, Frames and Boxes 2.6 Kerbs, Edgings and Pre-formed Channels 2.7 Highway Drainage 2.8 Communication Installations 2.9 Embankments and Cuttings 2.10 Grassed Areas 2.11 Hedges and Trees 2.12 Sweeping and Cleaning 2.13 Safety Fences and Barriers 2.14 Fences, Walls, Screens and Environmental Barriers 2.15 Road Studs 2.16 Road Markings 2.17 Road Traffic Signs 2.18 Road Traffic Signals 2.19 Road Lighting 2.20 Highway Structures Version 1 Amend.No 0 Issue Date May '96 HIGHWAYS AGENCY RMMS MANUAL CONTENTS (Continued) Part 3: INSPECTION 3.1 Introduction 3.2 RMMS Intervals and Frequencies 3.3 Carriageway 3.4 Footways and Cycle Tracks 3.5 Covers, Gratings, Frames and Boxes 3.6 Kerbs, Edgings and Pre-formed Channels 3.7 Highway Drainage 3.8 Communication Installations 3.9 Embankments and Cuttings 3.10 Grassed Areas 3.11 Hedges and Trees 3.12 Sweeping and Cleaning 3.13 Safety Fences and Barriers 3.14 Fences, Walls, Screens and Environmental Barriers 3.15 Road Studs 3.16
    [Show full text]
  • TA 79/99 Amendment No 1 3
    Chapter 3 Volume 5 Section 1 Determination of Urban Road Capacity Part 3 TA 79/99 Amendment No 1 3. DETERMINATION OF URBAN ROAD CAPACITY 3.1 Table 1 sets out the types of Urban Roads and the features that distinguish between them and affect their traffic capacity. Tables 2 & 3 give the flow capacity for each road type described in Table 1. 3.2 Table 4 gives the adjustments when the proportion of heavy vehicles in a one way flow exceeds 15%. A heavy vehicle is defined in this context as OGV1, OGV2 or Buses and Coaches as given in the COBA Manual (DMRB 13.1 Part 4, Chapter 8). 3.3 The flows for road type UM in Table 2 apply to urban motorways where junctions are closely spaced giving weaving lengths of less than 1 kilometre. Urban motorways with layout and junction spacing similar to rural motorways can carry higher flows and TA46/97 “Traffic Flow Ranges for Use in the Assessment of New Rural Roads” will be more applicable. 3.4 Flows for single carriageways are based upon a 60/40 directional split in the flow. The one-way flows shown in Table 2 represent the busiest flow 60% figure. 3.5 The capacities shown apply to gradients of up to 5-6%. Special consideration should be made for steeper gradients, which would reduce capacity. 3.6 On-road parking reduces the effective road width and disrupts flow, e.g. where parking restrictions are not applied on road type UAP2 the flows are likely to be similar to UAP3 where unrestricted parking applies, see Table 1, Similarly effective parking restrictions can lead to higher flows.
    [Show full text]
  • The A19 Trunk Road
    THE CHARTERED INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION The A19 Trunk Road The A19 tends to live in the shadow of the more well known A1 it runs more or less parallel with. However, it is no less important to the region, serving the heavy industry and associated ports of Teesside, Wearside and Tyneside. Its journey from a single carriageway road linking coastal towns to modern day dual carriageway has been a painstaking process of over 45 years but has brought both economic and visual transformation to the North East. 1 A Broad History Today the A19 trunk road is a modern all-purpose dual carriageway running from the junction with the A1 at Seaton Burn, north of Newcastle, until it leaves the region south of Middlesbrough. It continues through North Yorkshire to Thirsk and, via a short link (A168), rejoins the A1 at Dishforth. The A19 itself continues as a non-trunk road to Doncaster. In 1952, the A19 was very different. It existed only south of the River Tyne and was a coastal route of single carriageway and relatively poor standard. Starting at South Shields it passed through Whitburn, Sunderland and Seaham, heading inland through Easington and then back out to the coast via Horden and onto Hartlepool. It then snaked its way through Billingham, Stockton, Eaglescliffe and Yarm. The improvements in our region towards the route we know today began at the Tyne Tunnel in 1967/8. The tunnel (£13.4m) was built with approach roads from the A1058 Newcastle to Tynemouth Coast Road (£6.5m) in the north and the A184 Gateshead to Sunderland Trunk Road (£3.5m) in the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Dual Carriageways Dual Carriageways – Know the Dangers
    ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION Dual Carriageways Dual carriageways – know the dangers Never confuse a dual carriageway with a motorway. Both may have 2 or 3 lanes, a central reservation and a national speed limit of 70 mph, but that’s as far as the similarity goes. When driving on a dual carriageway there are many dangers you need to be aware of. Know the difference between dual carriageways and motorways Unlike motorways… • Dual carriageways may have variable speed limits; • Dual carriageways usually permit right turns; • Dual carriageways allow traffic to join from the left and cross from left to right; • Cyclists, mopeds, farm vehicles and pedestrians are allowed to use dual carriageways; • Dual carriageways may have Pelican Crossings, traffic lights, roundabouts and Zebra Crossings. 2 Know the speed limits Dual carriageways often have lower or variable speed limits shown by red circular signs. Rule 124 of The Highway Code NI says you MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle. The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified. 3 Know your stopping distances (Rule 126) Always drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. Remember - • Never get closer than the overall stopping distance (see typical stopping distances table); • Always allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle Know how to join a in front on roads carrying dual carriageway fast-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced; When joining a dual carriageway • The two-second gap rule should obey signs and road markings.
    [Show full text]
  • Click Here for Technical Note
    DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 1 LINKS PART 4 TD 70/XX DESIGN OF WIDE SINGLE 2+1 ROADS SUMMARY This Standard sets out the design requirements for Wide Single 2+1 roads. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES VOLUME 6 ROAD GEOMETRY SECTION 1 LINKS PART 4 TD 70/XX DESIGN OF WIDE SINGLE 2+1 ROADS Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 2. Design Principles 3. Geometric Standards 4. Junctions 5. Traffic Signs and Road Markings 6. Road Users’ Specific Requirements 7. Economics 8. References 9. Enquiries Appendix A: Traffic Signs and Road Markings (Sample layouts) Volume 6 Section 1 Chapter 1 Part 4 TD 70/XX Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION General Changeover: A carriageway layout which effects 1.1 A Wide Single 2+1 (WS2+1) road consists a change in the designated use of the middle lane of two lanes of travel in one direction and a single of a WS2+1 road from one direction of traffic to lane in the opposite direction. This provides the opposite direction. overtaking opportunities in the two lane direction, while overtaking in the single lane direction is Climbing Lane: An additional lane added to a prohibited. single or dual carriageway in order to improve capacity and/or safety because of the presence of a steep gradient. Scope Conflicting Changeover: A changeover where 1.2 This Standard applies to single carriageway the vehicles using the middle lane are travelling trunk roads in rural areas. TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1) is towards each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Speed Limits) Bill
    Research and Information Service Bill Paper 27th February 2014 Des McKibbin Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill NIAR 928-13 This paper examines the provisions of the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill Paper 19/15 27th February 2014 Research and Information Service briefings are compiled for the benefit of MLAs and their support staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. We do, however, welcome written evidence that relates to our papers and this should be sent to the Research and Information Service, Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 139, Parliament Buildings, Belfast BT4 3XX or e-mailed to [email protected] NIAR 928-13 Bill Paper Key Points The principal objective of the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) Bill (the Bill) is to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities caused by road traffic collisions, by introducing a 20mph speed limit for residential roads. The Bill provides DRD/Roads Service with the flexibility to make orders specifying that certain roads are, or are not, ‘residential roads’. In so doing, the Department has to consider whether or not the road is in a predominantly residential area or is a major thoroughfare. In order to apply this exemption it is anticipated that DRD/Roads Service would have to assess the entire urban unclassified road network (4,291km) to establish the most appropriate speed limit i.e. should the new national 20mph speed limit be applied or are the conditions right for a 30mph limit to be retained. A period of two years following royal assent has been prescribed for the DRD to carry out a public awareness campaign to ensure the public are made aware of the implications of this legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • SETTING LOCAL SPEED LIMITS Draft: July 2012
    SETTING LOCAL SPEED LIMITS Draft: July 2012 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Background and objectives of the Circular 3. The underlying principles of local speed limits 4. The legislative framework 5. The Speed Limit Appraisal Tool 6. Urban speed management 6.1. 20 mph speed limits and zones 6.2. Traffic calming measures 6.3. 40 and 50 mph speed limits 7. Rural speed management 7.1. Dual carriageway rural roads 7.2. Single carriageway rural roads 7.3. Villages 8. References/Bibliography Appendix A Key pieces of speed limit, signing and related legislation and regulations SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Key points Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed. Traffic authorities set local speed limits in situations where local needs and conditions suggest a speed limit which is lower than the national speed limit. This guidance is to be used for setting all local speed limits on single and dual carriageway roads in both urban and rural areas. This guidance should also be used as the basis for assessments of local speed limits, for developing route management strategies and for developing the speed management strategies which can be included in Local Transport Plans. 1. The Department for Transport has a vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but one that is also more sustainable, safer, and improves quality of life in our communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Guerrilla Gardening: an Exploration of Illegal Cultivation in the UK
    Centre for Environment and Society Research Working Paper series no. 1 Understanding guerrilla gardening: an exploration of illegal cultivation in the UK Michael Hardman Understanding guerrilla gardening: an exploration of illegal cultivation in the UK Michael Hardman School of Property, Construction and Planning, Birmingham City University Working Paper Series, no. 1 2011 ISBN 978-1-904839-44-6 © Author, 2011 Published by Birmingham City University Centre for Environment and Society Research Faculty of Technology, Engineering and the Environment City Centre campus, Millennium Point, Curzon Street, Birmingham, B4 7XG, UK ii CONTENTS Contents ii List of illustrations ii Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii The development of guerrilla gardening 1 The purpose of guerrilla gardening 3 Case study: F Troop 6 The ethical implications of researching a guerrilla troop 7 F Troop digs 7 Guerrilla gardening as a movement 10 Understanding a ‘movement’ 10 The four stages 11 Acting collectively 12 Conclusion 15 References 16 List of illustrations Figure 1: Seed bombs moulded to look like hand grenades 2 Figure 2: A suburban guerrilla food-producing alleyway 4 Figure 3: A large skirt which hid the planting of saplings into the M41 5 Figure 4: Hardman’s spectrum of guerrilla groups 6 Figure 5: The location of many of F Troop’s digs 8 Figure 6: F Troop in action 9 Figure 7: The food alley, and F Troop’s Nasturtium arrangement 11 Figure 8: The four stages theory applied to guerrilla gardening troops 13 Abstract This paper explores the concept of guerrilla gardening. It begins with a history of unlawful growing before investigating why individuals take part in guerrilla gardening.
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement on International Roads in the Arab Mashreq
    AGREEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL ROADS IN THE ARAB MASHREQ UNITED NATIONS 2001 The Parties to the present Agreement, conscious of the importance of facilitating land transport on international roads in the Arab Mashreq and the need to increase cooperation and intraregional trade and tourism through the formulation of a well-studied plan for the construction and development of an international road network that satisfies both future traffic needs and environmental requirements, have agreed as follows: Article 1 Adoption of the International Road Network The Parties hereto adopt the international road network described in Annex I to this Agreement (the “Arab Mashreq International Road Network”), which includes roads that are of international importance in the Arab Mashreq and should therefore be accorded priority in the establishment of national plans for the construction, maintenance and development of the national road networks of the Parties hereto. Article 2 Orientation of the routes of the International Road Network The Arab Mashreq International Road Network consists of the main routes having a north/south and east/west orientation and may include other roads to be added in the future, in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement. Article 3 Technical specifications Within a maximum period of fifteen (15) years, all roads described in Annex I shall be brought into conformity with the technical specifications described in Annex II to this Agreement. New roads built after the entry into force of this Agreement shall be designed in accordance the technical specifications defined in the said Annex II. Article 4 Signs, signals and markings Within a maximum period of seven (7) years, the signs, signals and markings used on all roads described in Annex I shall be brought into conformity with the standards defined in Annex III hereto.
    [Show full text]