Design Guidelines

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Design Guidelines Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines ASIAN HIGHWAY DESIGN STANDARD FOR ROAD SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES DESIGN GUIDELINES 2nd DRAFT 6 August 2017 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines CONTENTS PART 1 ROAD NETWORK PART 2 ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PART 3 INTERSECTIONS PART 4 ROADSIDE SAFETY PART 5 PEDESTRIANS, SLOW VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC CALMING PART 6 DELINEATION, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND LIGHTING PART 7 ROAD SIGNAGE PART 8 TUNNELS LIST OF REFERENCES Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines PART 1 ROAD NETWORK 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.1 Network Development 1.2 Interfaces 1.3 Transition Zones 2 SPEED LIMITS 2.1 General Considerations 2.2 Setting Speed limits 1 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines 1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.1 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT The Asian Highway Network consists of a diversity of road sections and facilities serving a variety of destinations of importance in population, industrial activities, tourism, logistics and international cross- border transport. The overall picture is illustrated in Fig. 1.1.1.1, Fig. 1.1.1.2 and Fig. 1.1.1.3. These road network and usage perspectives are fundamental considerations for road safety. Fig. 1.1.1.1 General Components of the Road Network Fig. 1.1.1.2 Major Bypasses Fig. 1.1.1.3 Key Facilities and Connections 1 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines Signing of Expressways and Express Roads Access-controlled roads are preferably signed as expressways or express roads which are defined in national law for the exclusive use of motor vehicles. Expressways are appropriate for high standard primary roads with design speed not less than 80km/h. Express roads are appropriate for other access-controlled roads with design speed not less than 60km/h. The entrance and termination of expressways and express roads should be demarcated by traffic signs as shown in Fig. 1.1.1.4. The entrance traffic sign may also be embedded onto directional signs in the general road network leading to expressways or express roads. Fig. 1.1.1.4 Expressway and Express Road Symbols Bypass of Population Centers Bypasses are diversion routes which bring main road traffic away from built-up Areas. They are often beneficial around cities from the safety, environmental and urban design perspectives. Bypasses are also highly desirable around smaller built-up areas with thriving activities or narrow cross-sections of the road. City bypasses are preferably ring road systems, but they may also directly traverse urban areas in the form of expressways or express roads in tunnels, viaducts or flyovers. On the other hand, high priority corridors may follow entirely independent corridors and connected to cities via linkages. Where a bypass is not access-controlled, the number of intersections and direct frontage accesses should be restricted. Adequate right-of-way will be needed for future upgrading including widening, provision of service roads, grade-separated intersections and crossing facilities. Allowance for Future Widening In the design of new primary roads, adequate consideration should be given to the need for future widening. There are two possibilities: • Acquiring right-of-way to accommodate additional traffic lanes • Initial construction of one carriageway only for two-way traffic For Option 1, symmetrical widening is preferred as asymmetrical widening is generally more prone to safety problems during construction. Option 2 should not be adopted unless a high level of safety design and management is ensured. Special treatments are required to reduce the risk of indiscriminate overtaking and drivers’ misinterpretation as a unidirectional road. It is generally not recommended to construct only one tunnel tube of a planned twin tube tunnel for bidirectional traffic in the interim period. If this option is chosen, special measures will be required to minimize any safety risks. 2 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines Network for Pedestrians and Slow Vehicles Mixed traffic of different types, masses and speeds on highways is prone to safety problems. Safety improvements on Asian Highway routes should, as far as possible, involve a wider optimization of the road network by diverting pedestrians and slow vehicles to local roads and minor corridors away from the main highway. Outside built-up areas, exposure of pedestrians, local traffic and slow vehicles to highway traffic should be minimized with a network strategy comprising one or more of the following measures: • Restricting the number of at-grade intersections and direct frontage accesses • Providing alternative or parallel routes or service roads • Grade-separation with or without intersection Re-use of Old Roads Where improvements of existing Asian Highway routes involve realignment, considerations should be given to the beneficial re-use of abandoned sections of the existing roads. Such re-use is preferably part of a network strategy to improve safety for pedestrians and slow vehicles. Possible initiatives include: • Existing road promoted as a local access road with traffic calming if the new road follows an entirely new alignment • Existing sections of roads and bridges parallel to the new road converted for the better use of pedestrians, slow vehicles or tourist traffic • New usage such as public parks, viewpoints, roadside parking areas, rest areas, emergency parking areas or bus stops Re-use of old bridges should be encouraged provided that they are well maintained. An individual old bridge only benefits one direction of travel, in which case pedestrian and slow vehicle facilities are still required for the other direction of travel. For successful re-use of existing roads, attention should be given to details so that they are attractive to users. It is generally desirable for users to be within the visibility of the new road for reasons of personal security. Intersections between the existing road and the new road should be minimized and treated with appropriate safety measures, particularly where crossing movements are expected. They should intersect the main road at right angle and are located on straight sections with adequate visibility. Where a bypass is available, the original urbanized section is preferably converted as a multi-purpose urban main street with traffic calming and pleasant streetscape in favor of pedestrians, slow vehicles and local activities. Intersections between the bypass and the existing road should be designed to clearly distinguish the bypass and the old road. 3 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines 1.2 Interfaces General Requirements Phased improvements of Asian Highway routes will result in interfaces between road sections of different characteristics. Typical interfaces are illustrated in Fig. 1.1.1.4 Fig. 1.1.1.4 Typical Interfaces At the interface between road improvement projects and existing roads, particular attention should be given to road safety in the direction from the new road to the existing road. The following treatments may be applied to incite drivers adapting their speeds and behavior: • Cross-section change in conjunction with changes in the surrounding environment and landscape • Provision of roundabouts • Mandatory exit through slip roads of grade-separated intersections Interface areas should not be located where the existing road geometry is significantly inferior to the new road. Unfavorable situations include the presence of sharp curves, significant crest profiles, complex road environment, constrained visibility etc. Roadsides at interfaces should conform to good practices pertaining to clear zones and vehicle restraint systems. 4 Asian Highway Network Design Standard for Road Safety Infrastructure Facilities - Design Guidelines 1.3 Transition Zones Transition zones are road sections at the interface between different road classes, road types or road sections with different design speeds. These zones should be accompanied by physical changes of the road which are obvious and explicit, but not to the extent of causing abrupt braking. A change of speed limit at transition zones should accord with: • changes in horizontal and vertical alignment, cross-sections etc • interchanges, roundabouts, intersections which create a gateway effect • changes between urban and rural settings • different streetscape, plantings or landscape, safety barriers etc The length of transition zones may be based on a deceleration rate of 0.8m/s2 and is generally in the order of 100m to 200m for each stepwise speed limit reduction of 20km/h. Where speed limit is reduced by more than 30km/h, stepwise reduction of 20km/h or 30km/h is recommended. Termination of Primary Roads Special treatments are required at transition zones to alert drivers and to assist them adapting to the change where a primary road or access-controlled Class I road terminates in one of the following arrangements: • A lower design speed is adopted on the road • The primary road becomes a Class I road • The road becomes a Class II or Class III road • The road terminates directly onto an at-grade intersection • The road terminates at a partially constructed grade-separated intersection “End of Expressway” signs should be erected
Recommended publications
  • The Gibraltar Highway Code
    P ! CONTENTS Introduction Rules for pedestrians 3 Rules for users of powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters 10 Rules about animals 12 Rules for cyclists 13 Rules for motorcyclists 17 Rules for drivers and motorcyclists 19 General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders 25 Road users requiring extra care 60 Driving in adverse weather conditions 66 Waiting and parking 70 Motorways 74 Breakdowns and incidents 79 Road works, level crossings and tramways 85 Light signals controlling traffic 92 Signals by authorised persons 93 Signals to other road users 94 Traffic signs 96 Road markings 105 Vehicle markings 109 Annexes 1. You and your bicycle 112 2. Vehicle maintenance and safety 113 3. Vehicle security 116 4. First aid on the road 116 5. Safety code for new drivers 119 1 Introduction This Highway Code applies to Gibraltar. However it also focuses on Traffic Signs and Road Situations outside Gibraltar, that as a driver you will come across most often. The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/ MUST NOT’.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction
    Special Issue - 2016 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 SNCIPCE - 2016 Conference Proceedings A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction Bavithran. R, Sasikumar. N Ms. G. Yamuna,.. Asst Professor Department of Civil Engg Department of Civil Engg V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst Abstract - Road junction is the point at which more than are also three major groups of sedimentary rocks, layers of two roads are connecting at the point. The junction is particles that settled in different geological periods. analyzed by Volume Count Survey. The volume count survey Viluppuram's GPS location is 11° 56' N 79° 29' E. is one of the methods of finding out the Traffic volume. The Villupuram is the one of the most popular city in junction which is situated in Villupuram is taken as study tamilnadu. In this project, an existing road junction is area. In this junction, the volume count survey is taken for 15 days for determine the Passenger Car Unit and the Level Of studied and analyzed by using volume count survey.. Some Service for the junction is computed. To improve the information are to be carried before the project has started. junction, some suggestions are suggested. The greener time of the Traffic flow from Chennai, Trichy, thirukovillur, Pondicherry are 20 sec, 25 Keywords:- Volume count survey, Peak hour, Passenger sec, 15 sec, and 20 sec respectively. CCTV is provided car unit, Level of service from junction to junction near veeravaliamman temple.
    [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]
  • Literature Review- Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic
    Literature Review Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic July 2018 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. FHWA-SA-18-030 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Literature Review: Resource Guide for Separating Bicyclists from Traffic 2018 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bill Schultheiss, Rebecca Sanders, Belinda Judelman, and Jesse Boudart (TDG); REPORT NO. Lauren Blackburn (VHB); Kristen Brookshire, Krista Nordback, and Libby Thomas (HSRC); Dick Van Veen and Mary Embry (MobyCON). 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Toole Design Group, LLC VHB 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300 DTFH61-16-D-00005 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Vienna, VA 22182 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE FHWA 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Tamara Redmon.
    [Show full text]
  • Siena Footbridge
    Structural Stainless Steel Case Study 05 Siena Footbridge Completed in 2006, this stainless steel cable stayed footbridge spans 60 m over a busy motorway in the suburb of Ruffolo, Siena, in central Italy. The bridge girders and pylons are fabricated from a ‘lean’ duplex grade of stainless steel and it is one of the first times this grade has been used for a footbridge. The bridge has a striking appearance, is functionally efficient and cost-effective with a low life cycle cost. Material Selection The City of Siena required an attractive pedestrian crossing to be constructed over the motorway in the suburb of Ruffolo. The structure needed to have a 120 year design life without expensive and disruptive maintenance requirements. The architect selected the ‘lean’ stainless steel duplex grade 1.4162 (S32101) for the girders and pylons of the bridge. Lean duplexes have a very low nickel content (1.5 % compared to >3 % in standard duplex stainless steels), which results in significant cost benefits compared to other austenitic and duplex grades. This grade of stainless steel also experiences less price volatility because of the low nickel content. The corrosion resistance of 1.4162, which lies between that of austenitic grades 1.4301 (S30400) and 1.4404 (S31603), is adequate for Ruffolo’s benign inland environment with relatively low pollution levels. Grade 1.4162 has high strength (450 N/mm2), good ductility (at least 30 %) and good formability and weldability. The high strength enables reductions in section sizes, relative to carbon steel sections, leading to lighter structures. This grade has tremendous potential for future structural applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Adopted Text
    THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Amendment No. 2017-28 Adopted November 17, 2020 AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2017 EDITION) The following changes to the Comprehensive Plan have adopted by the Board of Supervisors. To identify changes from the previously adopted Plan, new text is shown with underline and deleted text shown with strikethrough. MODIFY: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Area III, Fairfax Center Area, as amended through 7-31-2018, Fairfax Center Area-Wide Recommendations, page 8, to delete strikethrough text: “The core area near the first Metrorail station is planned for a mix of uses at a variety of intensities, some of which are tied to the funding of the Metrorail extension, or in the interim, funding of a Bus Rapid Transit System. Any development or redevelopment occurring prior to the funding of the Metrorail extension should not preclude higher-intensity transit-oriented development that is envisioned in the future. …” MODIFY: Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2017 Edition, Area III, Fairfax Center Area, Amended through 7-31-2018, Land Use Plan Recommendations – Suburban Center Core Area, Land Unit A, Land Use Recommendations, page 37: “Sub-unit A1 Baseline: Mixed use up to .15 FAR Overlay: Mixed use up to .65 FAR; 1.0 FAR Sub-unit A1 consists of approximately 133 acres, including a 109.5-acre portion that and contains the Fair Oaks regional mall Regional Mall at its center (“Mall Property” or “Mall”), as shown on Figure 11. and several Several office buildings, and hotels, and other commercial uses around its the perimeter of the Mall Property occupy the approximately 24-acre remainder of the sub-unit.
    [Show full text]
  • USER GUIDE for USLIMITS2
    USER GUIDE for USLIMITS2 December 2017 Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Objective of this Guide ............................................................................................................................... 2 Accessing the Expert System....................................................................................................................... 3 Getting Started ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Revise/Update Existing Projects ................................................................................................................. 3 Creating New Projects ................................................................................................................................. 4 New Route .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Existing Route: Selecting a Route and Area Type ........................................................................................ 4 Input Variables .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Footbridge, (Applicant Identification: ) Environmental Assessment
    PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE, (APPLICANT IDENTIFICATION: ) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT New York State Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery May 8, 2015 PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE – ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & ERR PROJECT SUMMARY Responsible Entity: New York State Homes & Community Renewal – Housing Trust Fund Corporation cooperating with the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) Certifying Officer: Daniel Greene, Esq., Certifying Environmental Officer, GOSR Project Name: Pedestrian Footbridge, Funding Recipient: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Project #: Project Sponsor: New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation Program Name: New York State Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (Housing Assistance Programs, 1 - 4 Unit) Project Address: , Sundown, NY 12740 Project County: Ulster County, NY Estimated Project Cost: $140,000 Project Sponsor Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery Address: 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1224 Albany, New York 12231 Primary Contact/ Person Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery To Direct Comments: 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004 E-Mail address: [email protected] Telephone Number: (212) 480-4644 Project NEPA 24 CFR 58.36 Classification: Finding of No Significant Impact - The project will not result ENVIRONMENTAL in a significant impact on the quality of the human FINDING: environment. Finding of Significant Impact - The project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The undersigned hereby certifies that New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation has conducted an environmental review of the project identified above and prepared the attached environmental review record in compliance with all applicable provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (42 USC sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Footbridge Design for Pedestrian Induced Vibrations
    FOOTBRIDGE DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIAN INDUCED VIBRATIONS SABINA PIRAS, KWAN CHIN WSP OPUS, Auckland, New Zealand INTRODUCTION With innovative engineering and inspiring design, footbridges have become functional works of art. However, the use of longer and lighter spans have made footbridges more susceptible to human-induced vibrations; causing discomfort to pedestrians and compromising the utility of the structure, even though the bridge is structurally sound and safe to cross. Design codes address this dynamic problem by providing limits for natural frequency and simplistic provisions to keep the footbridge experience pleasant. For slender, lightweight bridges, such as stress ribbon or cable-stayed bridges, this dynamic problem can be onerous and require a refined analysis to demonstrate that the comfort level can be satisfied. This paper presents a guideline to determine the dynamic bridge characteristics under pedestrian loading. In addition, factors that influence a bridge’s response to vibration and possible vibration mitigation measures are discussed herein. This paper focuses on the recommended design procedure by presenting an analytical model of a concrete footbridge subjected to a dynamic load representing the effects of a stream of pedestrians crossing the structure. In the vertical direction, the peak acceleration from the pedestrian loading is compared with published acceptance criteria. In the lateral direction, the critical number of pedestrians at which the bridge response becomes unstable is calculated. HUMAN LOCOMOTION When a pedestrian crosses a bridge, a dynamic force is produced which has components in the vertical, lateral and longitudinal directions. These dynamic forces are described as a function of time and space, periodically repeated with regular time intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II Highway Corridor Strategy Descriptions Technical
    ENTRAL ORK OUNTY ONNECTIONS TUDY CENTRAL YORK COUNTY CONNECTIONS STUDY PHASE II HIGHWAY CORRIDOR STRATEGY DESCRIPTIONS PHASE II TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SEPTEMBER 2011 Prepared for: Maine Department Maine Turnpike Authority of Transportation Prepared by: In association with: Morris Communications • Kevin Hooper Associates T.Y. Lin • Planning Decisions • Facet Decision Systems Dr. Charles Colgan, University of Southern Maine • Evan Richert Normandeau Associates • Preservation Company This document is formatted for two-sided printing. Document II-4 ENTRAL ORK OUNTY ONNECTIONS TUDY CENTRAL YORK COUNTY CONNECTIONS STUDY 1 INTRODUCTION This document summarizes the potential highway corridor improvements – called strategies – that are being tested and evaluated for Phase II of the Central York County Connections Study (CYCCS). Phase II Highway Strategies are a starting point in the development and consideration of candidate improvements for the study; they are not recommendations, nor are they the only strategies that will be studied. Phase II strategies are conceptual in nature, and not yet detailed, specific proposals. Strategies considered later in the study during Phase III, as well as those ultimately recommended by the study, may differ considerably from the initial strategies currently under evaluation in Phase II. Specific aspects of these initially proposed strategies may be dropped, carried forward or combined in different ways, depending on the results of the analyses conducted during Phase II. The study is guided by a Purpose and Need Statement, which articulates that the study is to identify transportation and related land use strategies that enhance economic development opportunities and preserve and improve the regional transportation system. Additional information on the study, including the full Purpose and Need Statement, is available at the project website: www.connectingyorkcounty.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy Street Pilot Projects
    ANN ARBOR HEALTHY STREET PILOT PROJECTS Summary of Findings January 14, 2021 Prepared by SmithGroup 1 HEALTHY STREET PILOT PROJECTS City Council passed R-20-158 “Resolution to Promote Safe Social Distancing Outdoors in Ann Arbor” on May 4, 2020. This resolution directed staff to (among other things) “develop recommendations and implementation strategies on comprehensive lane or street re-configurations (and report as soon as possible concerning these recommendations and strategies), including the possible cost of such options, the research conducted, and public input received, and other relevant data.” In response to this directive, City and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) staff gave a presentation on recommendations on June 15, 2020 along with two accompanying resolutions: “Resolution to Advance Healthy Streets in Downtown” and “Resolution to Advance Healthy Streets Outside Downtown.” These resolutions were passed by City Council on July 6, 2020. On August 27th the Ann Arbor DDA and the City of Ann Arbor began installing a series of healthy street pilot projects in the downtown area to provide space for safe physical distancing for bicycle and pedestrian travel. These projects, with the approval of City Council, reconfigured traffic lanes to accommodate temporary pedestrian and bicycle facilities, such as non-motorized travel lanes, two-way bikeways, and separated bike lanes. The pilot projects discussed in this report include the following locations: • Miller/Catherine Bikeway (from 1st Street to Division) • Division Street/Broadway Bikeway (from Packard to Maiden Lane) • S. Main Separated Bike Lanes (from William to Stadium) • State & North University Bikeway (from William Street to Thayer) • Packard Bike Lanes (from State to Hill) • East Packard Project (from Platt to Eisenhower) The pilot projects were designed and implemented in alignment with national guidance, City policies and plans, and the DDA’s adopted values for the People-Friendly Streets program.
    [Show full text]
  • Matakana Link Road Public Consultation Feedback
    Matakana link road Public Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 AT.govt.nz Contents 1. Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Project Development ..................................................................................... 5 1.2 Public Consultation ....................................................................................... 6 2. Feedback Received ..................................................................................................... 8 Question 1 – Which option do you prefer? ................................................................... 9 Question 4 – How would you use the road? .................................................................. 9 Questions 2, 3, 5 & 6 – Issues and Constraints (Key themes identified) ................... 10 3. Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 22 4. Conclusion................................................................................................................. 22 5. Appendix A. Consultation feedback ........................................................................ 23 2 Executive Summary In April 2017, Auckland Transport (AT) sought public feedback on the four short-listed options for the proposed Matakana Link Road. Feedback on the short-listed options was invited from 26 April to 20 May 2017. Submitters were asked to identify their preferred route option (see map
    [Show full text]