.MEMO
1982
Act
Hi James,
Table below is a summary of the 2016 RSA issues, the 2016 “Safety Engineer/Client Decision”, and my 2020 Comments and recommendation for close-out. GREEN is where I believe the 2016 decisions are still appropriate, BLUE may require
some extra analysis by designer. RED is where I think the 2016 decision should be re-visited.
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.1.1
MINOR – Ohinewai – Curved W-section at
No room to provide flare for
Not clear on the pre-implementation
I’m assuming that the accessway
W-section curved trailing end terminals
Information
Entranceways is essentially “non-gating”
continuous protection and RSB-2
plans, but appropriate clear areas for
requires the vehicle to decelerate and
at entranceways to remain. The barrier
from TM-2008 is considered
both the W-section and WRSB must be
accelerate on the shoulder before
is offset 3.5m from the edge line either
acceptable solution.
provided to mitigate the gating risk.
turning into the accessway or merging
side of the entranceways which provides
into the live lane.
sufficient room for
Individual driveways to be assessed
deceleration/acceleration.
whether flared WRSB could be provided This manoeuvre will increase
Considered Acceptable.
to mitigate risk further.
risk@110km/h. We should ensure that
there is sufficient shoulder for the
acceleration and deceleration
manoeuvres to be undertaken clear of
the live lane.
Official If there are no alternatives available,
then this is a risk that will perpetuate.
I consider this to represent a much
greater risk than the curve of the
the
guardrail or safety barrier configuration.
under
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.1.2
MODERATE – Off Ramps - insufficient sight
• Ohinewai – Increase barrier offset
• Ohinewai – Agree with 2016
As a rule, we try and limit barrier offsets
Ohinewai off ramp – no change
distance for 10s of travel time to taper & nose from 3.0 to 3.5m => 335m SD
Decision
to 4.0m max to manage impact angles
required.
(desirable need 335m =120km/h design
provided. Client Decision = Yes
and also to discourage use as an
• TR S’Bnd - Small concern that going
TR S’Bnd off ramp – no change
Act
speed)
additional lane.
• TR S’Bnd – Barrier offset could be
beyond 4.0m offset increases the risk of
required.
• Ohinewai Northbound off-ramp
increased from 3.0 to 4.5m to
bigger impact angles. Would like to
I don’t believe that it is worth providing
TR N’Bnd off ramp – no change
achieve 335m SD. Would require
know how much extra SD we can get
the additional SD for 120km/h. I would
• Te Rapa SH39 Southbound Off-Ramp
required.
additional berm & swale works.
from going to 4.0m offset instead of
recommend leaving the barrier offset at
• Te Rapa SH39 Northbound Off-Ramp
Current Design SD = 288m = 8.6s
4.5m. If this can get us to 305m SD
3.0m at the first location and accept the
@120km/h or 9.4s@110km/h. Client
(=10.0s @ 110kmh) this would be a
288m SD for the second.
Decision = Accept 288m SD.
good outcome.
• TR N’Bnd – 335m Achieved, no
• TR N’Bnd – Agree with 2016
change required
assessment.
3.1.3
MODERATE – Deficient WRSB laps with
1. Remove existing flared
1. Agree with 2016 Decision
Agreed
All WRSB terminals and overlaps to be
existing barrier systems.
terminals and install as per
consistent with TM-2013 RSB-7A.
2. Agree with 2016 Decision
TM-2013 detail RSB-7A.
Information
1. New Leading WRSB terminal in front
Client Decision = Yes
3. Agree with 2016 Decision.
of existing Trailing Terminal [1
location – Cambridge 3800 LHS]
2. All laps to be as per RSB-7A.
Client Decision = Yes
2. New Trailing WRSB terminal behind
existing leading terminal [14 location,
3. Plans diagrammatic only, All
3xOhinewai, 7xNgaruwahia, 4xTe
terminals and laps to be as
Rapa]
per RSB-7A. Client Decision
= Yes
3. WRSB terminals have insufficient
lateral clearance and overlap [3
locations, 2xOhinewai, 1x
Official
Cambridge]
3.1.4
MODERATE – Ohinewai – Deficient
Existing flax considered frangible and Agree lower risk, but still see merit
Agree with RLL.
Design has been amended to provide
Armitage Road Diverge. Recommend install
serves a purpose as a headlight
installing barrier down Armitage
for extension of barrier and crash
crash cushion & extend barrier down
screen. Armitage Road considered a
Road fence to cover off the Expressway
cushion down Armitage Rd.
the
Armitage road to cover Expressway length of
flat run-out area.
LON. As a loss-of-control vehicle is
need.
unlikely to pul up in time. This appears
that it would be easy to do.
In addition, the deceleration lane has
been extended by 30m to meet 110kph
design requirements.
under
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 2
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.1.5
MODERATE – Conflict with new barriers &
1. Existing poles have shear
1. Prefer all poles are relocated,
Locating the poles outside the tested
All poles in project site to be relocated to
Existing light poles.
bases, no change proposed.
but as a minimum - as per 2016
deflection may require excessive
1.5m behind new barrier to achieve
Client Decision = Acceptable.
Safety Engineer Comment, all
outreaches to achieve the appropriate
lighting consistency. All shear bases
1. Existing poles within the dynamic
Act
shear bases within the
lighting levels. This needs to be
within deflection zone to be tested to
deflection of the WRSB
2. All poles will be relocated
dynamic deflection zone
checked.
ensure correct torque settings.
behind barrier. Client
2. Existing poles in front of new barriers
should be checked for correct
Decision = must be outside
torque settings
dynamic deflection zone.
If this is an issue, then the offset to the
2. Agree with 2016 Decision, any columns may be brought down to 1.5m.
relocated poles must be clear of
dynamic defection.
3.1.6
MODERATE – Te Rapa – Deficient WRSB
Design modified. Client Decision =
Agree with 2016 Decision, note 2016
It is my understanding that the Te Rapa
No action required at this time.
break for cyclists. 25m gap in barrier for
Yes
Safety Engineers comments that the exit section of the WEX is not being
cyclists to exit. Recommend install parallel
must not be too tight (Some negative
considered for 110km/h speed limit.
barrier system (similar to Cambridge section)
feedback received on Cambridge
to cover Expressway LON.
example). Review exit geometrics for Information
appropriateness.
3.1.7
MINOR – General conflicts/omissions with
In process of obtaining designs,
Agree that co-ordination and match-
Agree with RLL
Rangiriri and Huntly sections are now
committed/in progress WEX works.
design will be amended as necessary ins with adjacent sections should be
complete and the Ohinewai design has
Recommend co-ordinate with Rangiriri &
to provide continuity though entire
achieved.
been amended to match into these
Huntly works.
expressway.
sections. Note that RS/RP has changed
as a result and this is evident on the
amended drawings.
To be considered further in the
Official
refinement of the Ngaruawahia section
design.
3.1.8
MINOR – Maintenance bay conflicts.
1. Moved 15m North to avoid
Agree with 2016 Safety Engineer
Agree with RLL
1. The northbound maintenance
Proposed maintenance bays appear to
embankment
Comment that Maintenance bay
bay has been relocated further
conflict with existing topography
locations also need to be checked for
north, clear of the overbridge
the
2. Moved south to provide
sightlines.
embankment. The sightlines to
1. Ohinewai 7980 RHS – fil
regular spacing between
each of the three proposed
embankment for overbridge.
maintenance bays.
maintenance bays meet the
Recommend move north.
minimum 210m requirement.
2. Ngaruawahia 4170 LHS – Existing
However, contractors should
drain & headwall. Recommend move
ensure that appropriate TM is
North.
used for maintenance activities
and vegetation in the vicinity of
under
the bays is kept clear to
maintain sightlines.
2. To be considered further in the
refinement of the Ngaruawahia
section design.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 3
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.1.9
MODERATE – Ngaruawahia Section –
1. Electronic Setout data to be
1. Agree with 2016 Decision
Agree with RLL comments
No change required for Ohinewai
Deficiencies associated with future-proofing
supplied to Contractor
section.
2. Agree with 2016 Decision
Hamilton Section Integration.
2. Drawing amended
Act
3. Agree with 2016 Decision
1. Setout is based on ultimate
3. Drawing amended
To be considered further in the
configuration, risk that Contractor
4. Agree with 2016 Decision
refinement of the Ngaruawahia section
sets out based on existing
4. Barrier moved to 3.0m offset
5. Agree with 2016 Decision
design.
configuration
5. This barrier is being
6. Agree with 2016 Decision
2. 5750-5850 LHS incorrectly labelled
relocated as part of the
as WRSB, should be W-section.
Hamilton Section works
7. If Safe Hit posts are still there,
assess any forward sight
3. 5890 LHS transition cannot be
6. Wide expressway shoulders
visibility issues.
achieved as drawn.
not suitable for Police
enforcement. Client Decision
4. 6430-6510, barrier closer than 3.0m
= Police enforcement
=> adversely affect SSD
provisions to be provided as
5. 0060-6350 – Median barrier
part of ‘Weigh Right’ project.
incorrectly located => tie-ins
7. This wide shoulder is to
therefore incorrect
accommodate future
6. 0600-6100 Existing wide shoulder
Hamilton Section, Safe hit
Information
used by NZ Police for enforcement
posts have been installed to
purposes, need to ensure
discourage vehicles pulling
enforcement provision is still
off. These wil be ultimately
provided for.
be removed as continuous
barrier protection is provided.
7. Northbound (north of Lake Road
CLIENT DECISION: Safe Hit
Overbridge) WRSB proposed some
posts installation not agreed
distance from median edgeline – risk
as considered unnecessary
that vehicles may then park on the
and can impede sight
RHS instead of the usual LHS.
distance
Official
3.1.10
SIGNIFICANT – General – OGPA Conflict
Drawings to be clarified – OGPA only Consider 500mm offset doesn’t go far I consider 500mm is close enough to
No change required for Ohinewai
with cyclists. OGPA lip wil be in the centre of on Ngaruawahia & Te Rapa.
enough to fully mitigate cyclists
provide shy-distance to the barrier for
section.
the shoulder available to cyclists.
Drawings amended to show OGPA
preferred path. Agree with 2016
cyclists and vehicles using the shoulder.
Recommend extend OGPA to barrier face.
extended to within 300mm of barrier
Designer & Safety Engineer
Assuming that the shoulder is 3.0m to
the
face. Client Decision: 500mm Offset
recommendation to go with 300mm.
the barrier face.
To be considered further in the
to be used.
refinement of the Ngaruawahia and Te
Rapa Sections.
under
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 4
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.1.11
MINOR – General – Various Barrier
1. Drawings amended
1. Agree with 2016 Decision
I do not understand how these were
No change required for Ohinewai
Deficiencies
omitted in the first instance but, given
section.
2. Existing barriers are 2.8-
2. Agree low-risk, recommend
that they are missing, why this is
1. >3.0m offset observed in several
2.9m offset in a few
check that existing barrier
Act
considered out of scope.
locations
locations, considered low-
position is not causing any
To be considered further in the
risk
SD issues which need to be
Agree with RLL - A standard WRBS to
2. Existing barriers less than 3.0m
refinement of the Ngaruawahia and Te
rectified.
rigid transition should be considered in
offset (Te Rapa 1700-1850 RHS)
3. Outside of scope of project.
Rapa Sections.
all locations. Where this is not
3. This seems an unacceptable
3. Ngaruwahia section - Various leading
practicable, a departure should be
risk, if there is no appropriate
end terminals missing from existing
sought.
transition from WRSB to Rigid
median rigid barriers (i.e. at Bridge
barrier, then this should be
piers). These are near existing
rectified.
WRSB. Recommend installing rigid
barrier terminals to address issue
from dynamic deflection.
Information
Official
the
under
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 5
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.2.1
MODERATE – General forward sight
Graham Taylor (NZTA) decision that
1. Agree with 2016 commentary,
1. Limit the barrier offset to 4.0m –
1. Barrier through curve to be
Distance deficiencies
210m SSD is acceptable.
trim vegetation, move barrier
which provides 197m of SSD.
offset 4.0m and vegetation to be
and achieve 210m SSD
cleared. This will provide a SSD
• Review all sight distances on the basis of
Two locations where 210m SSD has
2. Agree with RLL
Act of 210m for 0.2m object height
120km/h design speed.
been compromised by installation of
2. Agree with 2016 Client Decision,
3. Agree with RLL
(stationary object on road) and
new barriers.
assess what can be achieved
• Review all existing safety barriers for
210m for 0.8m object height (car
for a 0.2m & 0.8m scenarios.
conformance for 120km/h design speed.
1. Ohinewai Northbound Curve
tail light).
2.8-3.2. 3.0m Barrier offset
3. Agree with 2016 commentary,
2. To be considered further in the
gives 180m SSD, needs to
use available berm, move
refinement of the Ngaruawahia
be 4.75m to achieve 210m.
barrier to achieve 210m SSD.
Section.
Could be achieved by
trimming vegetation.
3. To be considered further in the
refinement of the Ngaruawahia
2. Ngaruwahia Northbound
Section.
ramp to future WEX Hamilton
Bypass Connection. 3.0m
offset barrier is on top of high
embankment and at bridge,
would require significant
earthworks and bridge
Information
widening.
3. Ngaruwahia Southbound
720mR curve to future WEX
Hamilton Connection,
Sufficient Berm width to
achieve 210mSSD. Drawings
to be amended.
Client Decision: Please advise
• What can be achieved with 0.2m
Official
object height
• What can be achieved with 0.8m
object height
• What is available seal width for
the
manoeuvring at WEX Hamilton
connection (Sec.5.5.1 of AGRD
3)
under
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 6
Released
1982
RSA Item Issue Summary
2016 Comments & Decisions
2020 RLL Comment and
2020 JRH Decision
2020 Designers Response
Summary
Recommendation
3.2.2
MODERATE – General – Acceleration
On Ramps at Ohinewai, SH18
From AGRD, Ramp Length = 585m x
Agree with RLL
No change necessary.
Distances on On-Ramps. Check all on-ramp
Gordonton, Te Rapa Drive & Koura
0.6 correction factor for 3-4%
lengths are appropriate for the predicted
Road all have lengths ranging from
downgrade = 350m.
Act
higher merge speeds.
300m to 430m.
With an entry speed of 30km/h and
Shortest ramp is 300m
typical 3-4% downgrade, 350m
required to achieve 110km/h.
300m / 0.6 => 500m flat grade
acceleration length
Safety Engineer: For ramps <350m
request widening in the merge area
to allow for additional manoeuvre
425m Equivalent flat grade length
space.
required for 100km/h.
Client Decision: Shoulder widening
changes the ramp configuration and
is considered unacceptable. Low
Calculated merge speed: = 105.6km/h
volumes on Expressway, no design
=> Acceptable
changes.
Recommend no design change
necessary.
Information
3.2.3
MINOR – General – Various Sign
1. 9m wide median with
1. Agree with 2016 Decision
Agree with RLL
No change necessary for Ohinewai
Deficiencies
frangible posts proposed.
section.
2. Agree with 2016 Decision
Given frangible posts
1. Speed threshold signage in medians
additional median protection
3. Agree with 2016 Decision
– may be large & non-frangible for
not considered necessary.
1. No change necessary.
wind loading. Recommend install
4. Agree with 2016 Decision
appropriate protection to prevent
2. Signs relocated
2. No further changes necessary.
5. Ngaruwahia – Agree with 2016
vehicle interaction with median
3. Drawings amended
Decision
3. No further changes necessary.
signage.
4. Proposed signs are
Te Rapa – Agree with 2016
4. To be considered further in the
2. Rangiriri Section – Advanced
1200x1200 or 900x900
Safety Engineer Comments –
refinement of the Ngaruawahia
Official
warning speed signs at CH.15150
Has Review from Mike P
Section.
may be obscured by Bridge
5. 110km/h at Ngaruwahia, lane
occurred?
piers/abutments. Recommend
gain situation, no driver
5. No change necessary for the
relocate signs.
decision. Safety Engineer &
Ngaruawaia section.To be
Client Decision => OK
considered further in the
3. Cambridge section – 100km/h
the
refinement of the Te Rapa
threshold to southbound on-ramp
110km/h at Te Rapa located
Section.
missing. Recommend install.
at start of two lanes, consider
very minor driver decision.
4. Ngaruwahia section – Advance
80km/h warning sign at 1860
Safety Engineer prefers
inappropriately sized. Recommend
location is downstream, and
900x900mm.
requires liaison with Mike
Pilgrim to ensure 80/110
5. General – Proposed 110km/h signs
change is in appropriate
at 4.71 (Te Rapa Northbound) and
under
place.
0.73 (Ngaruwahia Southbound) are
located at or near areas of multiple
decision making. Recommend
relocate to 4s of travel time beyond
commencement of dual lanes.
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY
DOCUMENT TITLE // 7
Released
Document Outline
- 2016.10.07 - RSA SH1 WEX Detailed Design - Designer, Safety Eng, Client response.pdf
- bkmkClient1
- bkmkDate1
- bkmkStatus
- bkmkProjectNumber
- bkmkChildNumber
- bkmkDateFooter
- bkmkDisclaimer
- bkmkQStatement
- bkmkProjectManager
- bkmkProjTechLead
- bkmkPreparedBy
- bkmkCheckedBy
- bkmkReviewedBy
- bkmkApprovedForIssueBy
- bkmkBranchDetails
- bkmkRevisionsScheduleTitle
- bkmkRevisionScheduleExists
- bkmkExecSummary
- bkmkClient4
- bkmkProject3
- bkmkApxTableTOC
- bkmkTOCAppendices
- bkmkStartReport
- Introduction
- Safety Audit Definition and Purpose
- The Road Safety Audit Team
- Report Format
- Table STYLEREF 1 \s 1 SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 1: Concern Assessment Rating Matrix
- Table STYLEREF 1 \s 1 SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 2: Concern Categories
- Documents Provided
- Table STYLEREF 1 \s 1 SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1 3: List of Waikato Expressway Safety Improvements Design Detail Drawings Supplied for RSA
- Previous Audit
- Audit Scope
- Disclaimer
- Project Overview
- Safety Concerns and Recommendations
- Waikato Expressway Safety Improvements
- Ohinewai Section – Trailing Safety Barrier System from Private Access-ways
- General - Deficient lateral location of Safety Barriers adjacent to Off-ramps
- General - Deficient WRB laps with existing Safety Barrier Systems
- Ohinewai Section - Deficient Armitage Road Diverge
- General – Safety Barrier System Conflict with existing Light Poles
- Te Rapa Section – Deficient WRB Break for Cyclists exiting/entering the Expressway
- General – Conflicts/Omissions with Committed Expressway works in Progress
- General – Maintenance Access Bay Conflicts
- Ngaruawahia Section – Deficiencies associated with Future Proofing Hamilton Section Integration
- General – OGPA Conflict with Cyclists
- General – Various Safety Barrier Deficiencies
- Safer Speed Classification
- General - Forward Sight Distance Deficiencies
- General - Acceleration Distances on On-ramps
- General - Various Sign Deficiencies
- Audit Statement
- Response and Decision Statements
- Designer’s Responses
- Safety Engineer’s Comments (if applicable)
- Project Manager’s Decisions
- Designer’s Statement
- Safety Audit Close Out
