detailed project report vol. v road safety … · irc-sp-88-2010 manual on road safety audit ......

PREPARATION OF DPR FOR VARIOUS ROAD

IMPROVEMENT WORKS UNDER TAMIL NADU ROAD

SECTOR PROJECT-II (TNRSP II)

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

VOL. V – ROAD SAFETY REPORT

Upgrading Tirunelveli - Tenkasi Road (SH 39)

Km 5/000 to Km 50/600

January 2017

Government of Tamil Nadu

Road Safety Report Tirunelveli-Tenkasi Road (SH-39)

TNRSP – II Revision No. 0| January 2017

Page | i

Project Name: DPR for Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project – II (TNRSP II):

Contract PPC 05

Project Number: 7061385

Report for: PD, PMU, WB(Transport), TNRSP, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

PREPARATION, REVIEW AND AUTHORISATION

Revision # Date Prepared by Reviewed by Approved for Issue by

0

10.01.2017

Kushal Pareek Col. Paramjit Ahluwalia (retd.)

Dr. H. A. Kazmi

ISSUE REGISTER

Distribution List Date Issued Number of Copies

TNRSP Tamil Nadu: 10.01.2017 6 Hard copies + 1 Soft

copy

SMEC staff:

Associates:

Office Library (SMEC office location): 10.01.2017 Soft Copy

SMEC Project File:

SMEC COMPANY DETAILS

M/s. SMEC (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd.- M/s. SMEC International Pty. Ltd., Australia (JV),

387, Udyog Vihar, Phase 2,

Gurgaon - 122016 (Haryana), India

T +91-124-4552800, 4501100 Ext.267 | F +91-124-4380043

Email: [email protected]

www.smec.com

The information within this document is and shall remain the property of SMEC INDIA PVT LTD

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.smec.com/



Page | ii

ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORKS UNDER TAMIL NADU

ROAD SECTOR PROJECT-II (TNRSP II)

For

PD, PMU, WB(Transport), TNRSP, Chennai, Tamil

Nadu



Page | iii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Project Details ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3. Road Safety Audit Details ............................................................................................. 1

1.3.1. General ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3.2. Audit Process .................................................................................................... 2

1.3.3. Previous Audits ................................................................................................. 2

1.3.4. Supporting Information ...................................................................................... 2

1.3.5. Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 2

1.3.6. Engineering Standards ...................................................................................... 2

1.3.7. Audit Details ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3.8. Objectives of the Assignment ............................................................................ 3

1.3.9. Methodology and Approach .............................................................................. 3

Chapter 2 – Road Safety Audit .................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Road Safety Checklist ................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 General Observation and Recommendations .................................................... 4

2.1.2 Critical Observation and Recommendations ................................................... 27

Chapter 3 -Summary of Recommendations .............................................................................. 39

3.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 39

3.2 Specific Recommendation for Parameters of Road Safety .......................................... 39

Chapter 4 -Concluding Statement ............................................................................................. 42



Page | 1

Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

The Project Director, TNRSP II, Tamil Nadu state has appointed M/s. SMEC (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. - M/s. SMEC International Pty. Ltd., Australia (JV). (SMEC), as their Consultant for providing Consultancy services to prepare Detailed Project Report for various roads vide their letter No. 4074/2012/TNRSP II/P-5 dated 24th September 2013 covering a total length of 452.68 Kilometer. Review for safety aspects of existing road at different stages of design and carrying out road safety audit is an integral part of project preparation. This Road Safety Audit Report has been prepared as per the Terms of Reference (TOR) and presents the findings of Audit for the following Existing roads under Fast Track implementation of the PPC05 package and the findings of the audit detailing the identified deficiencies are detailed in this report. 1) State Highway SH 39, Tirunelveli to Tenkasi Road, Km. 5/000 and End point Km. 50/600. A day inspection had been conducted for this Stage 6 Audit as required. All observations have been logged and deficiencies identified, listed and rated as High, Moderate or Low risk, using the suggested format in the above referenced section. Night inspection was also done in order to review the Night Time road safety viz. Provision of Road studs, Delineators with reflectors, Junction lighting etc. The audit has been undertaken by accredited Road Safety Auditors from SMEC’s Chennai office who are independent of the design.

1.2. Project Details

The project roads are located in the district of Tirunelvelli, Tamil Nadu State. Project road from Tirunelveli to Tenkasi section of SH39

Project road starts from Tirunelveli at Km 5+000 and traverses a length of 45.600 km, ends near intersection with SH 39A at Km 50+600 in Tenkasi. It passes through the 34 villages and 11 minor and major habitat areas enroute. The existing 2 lane carriageway is proposed for widening to 4 lane carriageway with paved shoulder. There is a railway line crossing at KM 44+100 warrants for Railway Over Bridge. The above road is existing 2 lane road has been audited for Stage 6 Road Safety Audit.

1.3. Road Safety Audit Details

1.3.1. General

Road Safety Auditing is a formalised procedure, which can be applied to all phases of a road project or to an existing road system. The Auditor, and audit team, must be independent of the designer, so that the design is viewed with “fresh eyes”. The purpose of the audit is not to rate the design, but rather to identify any road safety concerns. A comprehensive road safety review is undertaken along the project road and at the identified black spots. The review is made in accordance with IRC manual for safety in road design and other international best practices. Public consultation, including consultation with road side



Page | 2

communities, police, NGOs working in the area and other road users has been undertaken to assess the road safety vulnerability. Special attention will be paid to road sections with poor geometric standard and constrictions, town and village stretches and at all junctions and cross road locations. Road safety will be fully integrated in engineering design and will be again subjected to Road safety Audit. In reviewing the safety aspects of a road design, the reporting procedure is not intended as a redesign process, but to identify potential, or existing, road safety issues, and rank the safety problem and associated accident potential. The objectives of a road safety audit are:

To review the existing design and background information and form conclusions about the safety performance and accident potential for the existing road

To evaluate the design in terms of interaction with its surrounds and nearby roads and to visualise potential impediments and conflicts for road users.

To identify and report on aspects of the design that may result in unnecessary or unreasonable hazards for road users.

To rate the risk by evaluating the likelihood of an accident and the likely severity of the outcome, should an accident occur.

1.3.2. Audit Process

A site inspection was carried out on 8th May 2014 by the Auditors. A night audit was also carried out on the 11th May 2014 .The weather was fine during both audits and the site inspection started from Tirunelveli. Auditors examined the existing condition of road and identified the road safety hazards/issues faced by the traffic moving on either direction.

1.3.3. Previous Audits

No previous audits have been noted for the existing road section.

1.3.4. Supporting Information

The accident data received from TNRSP along the projects were reviewed during the audit. No drawings for the existing road were reviewed during the audit.

1.3.5. Design Criteria

The existing features of road were examined based on the design speed speculated for State Highways along the road. There was no posted speed noticed along the project road.

1.3.6. Engineering Standards

The following engineering standards are used as reference:

IRC-SP-88-2010 Manual on Road Safety Audit

IRC-SP-41-1994 Guidelines for the design of at grade intersections in rural & urban areas

IRC-66-1976 Sight distance on rural highways

IRC-38-1988 Design of horizontal curves and design tables



Page | 3

1.3.7. Audit Details

Road : State Highway No. 39 Section : TIRUNELVELI to TENKASI (SH-39) Location : Km 5.000 to 50.600 (SH-39) State (s) : Tamil Nadu Construction work : 2 Laning (existing) Date of Audit : 8th May, 14 - 11th May, 2014 Road Safety Audit Stage : Stage 6 Weather Conditions : The Weather condition during Safety audit

was dry. No. of Members in Audit Team : 2 (Mr. Elango B & Mr Suresh Kumar)

1.3.8. Objectives of the Assignment

Minimize the risk and severity of accidents on Project Highway.

Minimize injuries, loss of life and damage to property resulting from accident on Project Highways, irrespective of the person(s) at fault.

Ensure the safety of all users of highway including motorized & non-motorized vehicles, pedestrian, animals, cyclist and two wheeler riders.

Review of proposed highway profiles.

1.3.9. Methodology and Approach

During the course of the Detailed Project study, the designs and subsequent revisions, provision of safety report, response to safety report and provision of exceptions report to Client will remain in focus. The design has been reviewed right from noticing ‘departure from standards’ for all aspects involved are listed below in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: List of drawings reviewed for RSA development stage

Sr. No

Particulars Availability status

Standards adopted to review

1 Horizontal & Vertical Geometry Report

Available IRC SP 84-2009

2 TCS & Schedule Available IRC SP 84-2009

3 Plan & Profile Drawings SH 39 Available IRC 73, IRC 38, IRC SP 23, IRC SP 84-2009

4 Details Layout of at grade & grade separated Junctions

Available IRC SP 41-1994, Type design Drawing of at grade junctions by MORTH

5 Schedule of anti- crash barrier Available IRC SP 84, Road safety circular issued by MORTH dated 27th April

6 Drawings pertaining to Bus bays, Truck Lay- bys, Toll Plaza, et.

Available --

7

Drawings pertaining to Side Drains, bridges, culverts etc. (General Arrangement drawings only)

Available IRC SP 42

8 Drawings pertaining to Signage & Pavement Marking

Available IRC 67-2012



Page | 4

Chapter 2 – ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

2.1. Road safety checklist

2.1.1 General Observation and Recommendations

Following road safety concerns are made by Audit team during Audit. For the Ease of understanding, concerns and recommendations for the complete road of SH 39 has been divided in 6.5 Km sections. Below are the General Observations and Recommendations on Road safety issues.



Page | 5

Design Ch. 05000 to Ch. 11500 (Tirunelveli to Tenkasi-SH39)

S. No

Checklist Design Proposal

Compliance / Departure from IRC Standards Provision of IRC and MORTH Remarks

Compliance Departure

1

GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS

Horizontal Alignment

Radius of curve Minimum Radius 300m √

IRC SP 84-2009, Clause 2.9.4

Table 2.6

Length of curve Minimum Length of curve provided (up to deflection angle 5

0 or more)– 38.938m

√

IRC 73 , Clause 9.1.5

Extra widening Extra widening (for curve radius >= 300m) not required.

√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.7.2

Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment

Max. Vertical gradient Maximum Proposed Longitudinal gradient 2.00 %

√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.6.2

Table 2.8

Minimum length of Summit / Valley curve

Minimum proposed curve length of vertical curve 60.00 m

√

IRC 73, Clause 10.3.3., Table 20

Vertical sight distance (m) Stopping sight distance - 180m /120m

IRC 73 Clause 8.2, Table 11 180m for design speed of 100kmph

Minimum K Value

Hog curve – 66.89

√ IRC SP 23, Clause 5.7.5, Table 6 Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 80 kmph is 32.6

Sag Curve – 36.57 √

IRC SP 23, Clause 5.7.5, Table 6 Minimum K value for sag curve for Design speed of 80 kmph is 25.3

Max algebraic grade difference without Vertical curve

No vertical kinks proposed √



Page | 6

S. No




2

DRAINAGE

Minimum longitudinal gradient (%) (Except for level grade cases of deck slab of structures)

0.011

√ IRC Sp 42, Clause 4.1

Longitudinal gradient flattened for optimization of overlay quantity. The location lies in straight Normal camber section

Footpath Cum Covered Drain

1.5 m wide Footpath cum Covered drain proposed in Urban Areas

√

3

CROSS SECTION

Pavement Camber (%) 2.500 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.7

Max. Super elevation (%) 7.000 √

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3

Cross fall for Earthen shoulder (%)

3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8

Embankment Slope 2 H : 1 V √

4

INTERCHANGES AND INTERSECTIONS

Minor Junction -Km 6+430 -Km 8+595 -Km 8+615 -Km 9+385 -Km 10+605 -Km 11+230

Minimum Turning Radii (m) 15.000 √

IRC SP 41, Table 4.3, Table 4.4 & Table 4.5

Width of Turning lane (m) 5.500 √

IRC SP 41, Table 4.6



Page | 7

S. No




5 TRAFFIC SIGINING, ROAD MARKING AND STREET LIGTHING SYSTEMS

Traffic signs proposed and Road markings proposed as per IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35 respectively

IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35

6 WAY SIDE AMENITIES Proposed as Per Manual of Four Laning issued by MORTH

7

NON MOTORISED USER PROVISION

Pedestrians

Pedestrian refuge island proposed at Junctions

√

IRC 103-1988

STOP / GIVE WAY signs and ZEBRA crossing proposed

√

IRC 67-2012

Pedestrian Guard rail proposed at Built up area locations

√

IRC 103-1988

8

ROAD SAFETY PROVISIONS

Metal beam Crash barriers

W beam Metal crash barriers proposed at High embankment ( >3 m) locations & in the approaches of bridges

√

IRC SP 84, Road safety circular

issued by MORTH dated 27th April

Delineator Propose at Sharp curve location and Low embankment (< 1 - 3 m)

√

IRC 79-1981

Chevron signs Proposed at Sharp horizontal curve locations

√

IRC 67-2012



Page | 8

Design Ch. 11500 to Ch. 18000 (Tirunelveli to Tenkasi-SH 39)

S. No


Compliance / Departure from IRC

Standards Provision of IRC and MORTH Remarks


1




IRC SP 84-2009, Clause 2.9.4

Table 2.6


0 or more)– 55.386m

√



√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.7.2

Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment


√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.6.2

Table 2.8



√




Minimum K Value

Hog curve – 32.40 √

IRC SP 23, Clause 5.7.5, Table 6

Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 65 kmph is 18.4 Design speed reduced to 65kmph at Toll plaza location







Page | 9

S. No





2

DRAINAGE


0.015



Footpath Cum Covered Drain 1.5 m wide Footpath cum Covered drain proposed in Urban Areas

√

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7


IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3


3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4


Minor Junction -Km 12+420 -Km 14+230 -Km 14+850 -Km 15+020 -Km 15+000







√

IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35



Page | 10

S. No





6 WAY SIDE AMENITIES

Proposed as Per Manual of Four Laning issued by MORTH

√

7


Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988


√

IRC 67-2012


√

IRC 103-1988

8




√


issued by MORTH dated 27th April

Delineator

Propose at Sharp curve location and Low embankment (< 1 - 3 m)

√

IRC 79-1981


√

IRC 67-2012

Design Ch. 18000 to Ch. 24500 (TIRUNELVELI TO TENKASI-SH39)



Page | 11

S No.


Compliance / Departure from IRC Standards Provision of IRC and

MORTH Remarks


1




IRC SP 84-2009, Clause

2.9.4 Table 2.6


0 or more)–

75.259m √


Extra widening Extra widening (for curve radius >

300m) not required. √

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause

2.7.2 Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment

Max. Vertical gradient Maximum Proposed Longitudinal

gradient 1.821 % √


2.9.6.2 Table 2.8



√

IRC 73, Clause 10.3.3.,

Table 20


IRC 73 Clause 8.2, Table

11 180m for design speed of

100kmph

Minimum K Value


IRC SP 23, Clause 5.7.5,

Table 6

Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 100 kmph

is 32.6



Table 6

Minimum K value for sag curve for Design speed of 80 kmph is

25.3 Max algebraic grade difference without Vertical curve


2 DRAINAGE



Page | 12

S No.



MORTH Remarks



0.215


Longitudinal gradient flattened for optimization of overlay

quantity. The location lies in straight Normal camber section

Footpath Cum Covered Drain 1.5 m wide Footpath cum Covered

drain proposed in Urban Areas √

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7


IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3


3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4


Minor Junction -Km 18+255 -Km 19+640 -Km 19+987 -Km 23+525







Page | 13

S No.



MORTH Remarks



Traffic signs proposed and Road markings proposed as per IRC 67-

2012 & IRC 35 respectively

IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35

6 WAY SIDE AMENITIES Proposed as Per Manual of Four

Laning issued by MORTH

7


Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988


√

IRC 67-2012


√

IRC 103-1988

8



W beam Metal crash barriers proposed at High embankment ( >3 m) locations & in the approaches of

bridges

√

IRC SP 84, Road safety

circular issued by MORTH

dated 27th April

Delineator Propose at Sharp curve location and

Low embankment (< 1 - 3 m) √

IRC 79-1981

Chevron signs Proposed at Sharp horizontal curve

locations √

IRC 67-2012



Page | 14


S. No





1




IRC SP 84-2009, Clause 2.9.4

Table 2.6


0 or more)– 29.661m

√


Extra widening Extra widening (for curve radius < 300m) required at few locations.

√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.7.2

Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment

Max. Vertical gradient Maximum Proposed Longitudinal gradient 1.397%

√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.6.2

Table 2.8



√




Minimum K Value


IRC SP 23, Clause 5.7.5, Table 6 Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 100 kmph is 32.6







Page | 15

S. No





2

DRAINAGE


0.183



Footpath Cum Covered Drain 1.5 m wide Footpath cum Covered drain proposed in Urban Areas

√

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7


IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3


3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4


Minor Junction -Km 25+950 -Km 26+590 -Km 27+265 -Km 28+680 -Km 29+480






Traffic signs proposed and Road markings proposed as per IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35

respectively

IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35



Page | 16

S. No





6 WAY SIDE AMENITIES Proposed as Per Manual of

Four Laning issued by MORTH

7


Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988

STOP / GIVE WAY signs and ZEBRA crossing

proposed √

IRC 67-2012

Pedestrian Guard rail proposed at Built up area

locations √

IRC 103-1988

8



W beam Metal crash barriers proposed at High embankment ( >3 m)

locations & in the approaches of bridges

√


issued by MORTH dated 27th

April

Delineator Propose at Sharp curve

location and Low embankment (< 1 - 3 m)

√

IRC 79-1981

Chevron signs Proposed at Sharp

horizontal curve locations √

IRC 67-2012




Page | 17

S. No



Standards Provision of IRC and MORTH

Remarks


1





2.9.4 Table 2.6


0 or more)–

33.806m √


Extra widening Extra widening (for curve radius > 300m) not required.

√


2.7.2 Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment


√


2.9.6.2 Table 2.8



√

IRC 73, Clause 10.3.3.,

Table 20


IRC 73 Clause 8.2, Table

11 180m for design speed of 100kmph

Minimum K Value



Table 6

Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 100 kmph is 32.6



Table 6

Minimum K value for sag curve for Design speed of 80 kmph is 25.3



2 DRAINAGE



Page | 18


0.116





√

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7


IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3


3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4


Minor Junction -Km 32+240 -Km 34+235 -Km 34+380 -Km 37+300







IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35


7 NON MOTORISED USER PROVISION



Page | 19

Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988


√

IRC 67-2012


√

IRC 103-1988

8




√



dated 27th April


√

IRC 79-1981


√

IRC 67-2012



Page | 20


S. No



Standards Provision of IRC and

MORTH Remarks


1





2.9.4 Table 2.6


0 or more)– 72.887m

√



√


2.7.2 Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment


√


2.9.6.2 Table 2.8



√

IRC 73, Clause 10.3.3., Table

20



Minimum K Value



Table 6 Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 100 kmph is 32.6



Table 6 Minimum K value for sag curve for Design speed of 80 kmph is 25.3





Page | 21

S. No




MORTH Remarks


2

DRAINAGE


0.000


Longitudinal gradient flatened for optimization of overlay quantity. The location lies in straight Normal camber section



√

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7


IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3


3.000 √

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4


Major Junction -Km 43+580



Min. Turning radius proposed for Large Semi Truck Trailor



Length of Acceleration Lane (m)

No Acceleration Lane Provided

√ IRC SP 41, Table 4.8 No Acceleration lane to avoid Land acquisition

Length of Deceleration Lane (m)

No Deceleration Lane Provided

√ IRC SP 41, Table 4.9 No Deceleration lane to avoid Land acquisition

Minor Junction -Km 38+100 -km 38+455 -km 39+100 -km 39+280 -km 39+620



Page | 22

S. No




MORTH Remarks


-km 39+790 -km 40+130 -km 40+390 -km 41+575 -km 41+785 -km 42+355 -km 42+510







IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35


7


Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988


√

IRC 67-2012


√

IRC 103-1988

8




√



dated 27th April



Page | 23

S. No




MORTH Remarks



√

IRC 79-1981


√

IRC 67-2012


S. No




Remarks


1




IRC SP 84-2009, Clause 2.9.4

Table 2.6 Followed existing ROW at curve no.56


0

or more)– 107.384m √



√


2.7.2 Table 2.5

Vertical Alignment


√


2.9.6.2 Table 2.8



√

IRC 73, Clause 10.3.3., Table

20



Page | 24

S. No




Remarks




Minimum K Value



Table 6 Minimum K value for Hog curve for Design speed of 100 kmph is 32.6



Table 6

Minimum K value for sag curve for Design speed of 65 kmph is 17.4 Design speed reduced at ROB location.



2

DRAINAGE


0.000





√

3

CROSS SECTION


IRC 73, Clause 6.7

Max. Super elevation (%) 7.000

√

IRC SP 84-2009 , Clause 2.9.3

Cross fall for Earthen shoulder (%) 3.000

√

IRC 73, Clause 6.8


4 INTERCHANGES AND INTERSECTIONS



Page | 25

S. No




Remarks


Minor Junction -Km 42+355 -Km 42+510 -Km 44+090 -Km 44+110 -Km 44+360 -Km 44+740 -Km 45+580 -Km 46+690 -Km 47+605 -Km 48+680 -Km 49+410

Minimum Turning Radii (m) 15.000

√




5

TRAFFIC SIGINING, ROAD MARKING AND STREET LIGTHING SYSTEMS


IRC 67-2012 & IRC 35


7


Pedestrians


√

IRC 103-1988


√

IRC 67-2012


√

IRC 103-1988

8 ROAD SAFETY PROVISIONS



Page | 26

S. No




Remarks




√



dated 27th April


√

IRC 79-1981


√

IRC 67-2012



Page | 27

2.1.2 Critical Observation and Recommendations

The table below shows safety concerns for critical locations, with reference to images shown. Also recommendations for Road safety provisions indicated in the Table. Summary of the Audit findings for SH 39-

No Location Description of road safety

deficiency Preliminary Risk Rating

Photo Reference

Remarks

1 KM:

6+500

T-intersection with approaching side road. The intersection sight distance to the vehicles approaching from the side road is obstructed by the bus shelter and trees. Also noted the presence of warning signs with blinkering red light.

High SH 39-1

Junction improvement with channelization and lighting proposed. Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD) to be improved

2 KM:

8+000 Horizontal curve hidden behind the crest.

Moderate

SH 39-3

Signage for horizontal curves to be proposed at locations with inadequate sight distance

3 KM

9+800

Accident prone area with speed breakers. Parked vehicles obstructing the sight distance at sharp curves where there is frequent pedestrian crossings from Sundaram University.

High

SH 39-2

Geometry to be improved. Traffic calming methods proposed with appropriate traffic signage recommended Traffic sign for school proposed.

4 KM:

14+000 Intersection sight distance obstructed by structures.

High

SH 39-4

Geometry to be improved Junction improvement with appropriate traffic signage and hazard markings

5 KM:

15+000 33+700

Short Reverse curve.

Moderate SH39-5, SH 39-

13

Delineator and Chevron signs are proposed. Geometry to be improved

6 KM

16+200 Sharp Horizontal Curve with inadequate site distance.

High SH 39-6 Delineator and Chevron signs are proposed. Geometry to be improved

7 KM:

18+300

Horizontal curve hidden

behind the crest at Cross

Drainage location.

High

SH 39-7

Signage for horizontal curves to be proposed at locations for inadequate sight distance

8 KM

19+200

Inadequate vertical Sight distance due to Crest located over the cross drainage structure.

High SH 39-8

Signage for vertical curves to be proposed at locations for inadequate sight distance



Page | 28

No Location Description of road safety

deficiency Preliminary Risk Rating

Photo Reference

Remarks

9 KM:

28+100

Inadequate horizontal sight distance due to sharp horizontal curve.

High

SH 39-9 Delineator and Chevron signs are proposed. Geometry to be improved

10 Km

28+500

Long and sharp Left hand curve with inadequate sight distance.

High

SH 39-10 Delineator and Chevron signs are proposed. Geometry to be improved

11 KM

31+100

Trees located very close to the Carriageway at curve locations obstructing the sight distance also.

High SH 39-11

Reflective paint on trees and hazard markers proposed. Geometry to be improved

12 KM

32+200

Buses stopping on the

Carriageway obstructing other

vehicles.

Moderate

SH 39-12

Bus bays signs and pavement marking at bus bays proposed. Busbays to be provided at

several locations along the

project road

13 KM

33+700

Reverse curve with sharp radius.

Moderate SH 39-13


14 KM

37+600

Sight distance not available at crest located on the minor bridge.

Moderate SH 39-14

Signage for curves to be proposed at locations for inadequate sight distance

15 KM

43+000

Traffic Calming device in place due to frequent accidents.

Moderate

SH 39-15

Traffic calming methods proposed with appropriate traffic signage recommended

16 KM

43+500

Major intersection with SH 39 B.

High

SH 39-16

Requires junction improvement including channelization with appropriate traffic signage recommended.

17 KM

44+100 Railway crossing heavy Traffic Volumes.

Moderate

SH 39-17 Warrants for ROB

18 KM

46+500

Sharp reverse curves with tress located close to carriageway obstructing the sight distance.

High SH 39-18


19 KM

47+000

Sharp Curve with radius less than 100m is a black spot.

High SH 39-19

Delineator and Chevron signs are proposed. Geometry to be improved Noted that speed breakers are provided to slow down the speed.

20 KM

49+400 Sharp reverse curve with inadequate sight distance.

High SH 39-20




Page | 29

Photographs of Road Safety Audit of State Highway SH 39

Photo SH 39 -1

Km 6+500 T- intersection with side road has a warning to the road users on SH 39 indicating

approach of frequent vehicles. The intersection sight distance to the vehicles approaching from the

side road is obstructed by the bus shelter and trees.

Photo SH 39 -2

KM 9+800 Accident prone area with speed breakers. Parked vehicles obstructing the sight distance

at sharp curves where there is frequent pedestrian crossings from Sundaram University.



Page | 30

Photo SH 39-3

Km 8+000 Horizontal curve hidden behind the crest.

Photo SH 39 -4

KM 14.00 Intersection sight distance obstructed by structures and buses frequently stopping just

infront of the intersection.



Page | 31

Photo SH 39-5

Short Reverse curve at KM 15

Photo SH 39 -6

Sharp Horizontal Curve with inadequate site distance km 16+200



Page | 32

Photo SH 39 -7

Horizontal curve hidden behind the crest at Cross Drainage location KM 18+300

Photo SH 39 -8

KM 19+200 Inadequate vertical sight distance due to crest located over the cross drainage structure.



Page | 33

Photo SH 39 -9

Km 28+100 Speed breakers in place, inadequate sight distance on curves.

Photo SH 39 -10

Km 28+500 Long and sharp Left hand curve with inadequate sight distance.



Page | 34

Photo SH 39 -11

KM 31+100 Trees located very close to the Carriageway at curve locations obstructing the sight

distance also.

Photo SH 39 -12

KM 32+200 Buses stopping on the carriageway obstructing other vehicles.



Page | 35

Photo SH 39 -13

KM 33+ 700 Reverse curve with sharp radius.

Photo SH 39 -14 KM 37+600 Sight distance not available at crest located on the minor bridge.



Page | 36

Photo SH 39 -15

KM 43+000 Traffic Calming device in place due to frequent accidents.

Photo SH 39 -16

KM 43+ 500 Major intersection with SH 39 B, requires junction improvement including channelization



Page | 37

Photo SH 39 -17

KM 44+100 Railway crossing heavy Traffic volumes, warrants for ROB

Photo SH 39 -18

KM 46+500 Sharp reverse curves with tress located close to carriageway obstructing the sight distance



Page | 38

Photo SH 39 -19

KM 47+000 Sharp Curve with radius less than 100m is a black spot.

Photo SH 39 -20

KM 49+400 Sharp reverse curve with inadequate sight distance requires geometry improvement.

.



Page | 39

Chapter 3 – SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 General

This Report on Road Safety is focused on review of designs right from noticing ‘departure from standards’ for all aspects involved including cross sections and variation in cross sections, drainage, landscaping, position of lay-byes access, adjacent developments, radius of curvatures, gradient, height of embankment, length & location of crash barriers, entry & exit to the highway, junctions and adjacent activities. Review of the road designs have been done in a systematic manner in the light of analysis of crash and road accidents data their trends and frequency of occurrence of accidents and possible causes and sustainable remedial measures in terms of improvement in road design.

3.2 Specific Recommendation for Parameters of Road Safety

Following Engineering measures are recommended to improve the road safety i) Road Alignments and geometrics

Horizontal geometrics at many locations is compromised due to Right of Way constraints and therefore in the situation to follow the geometry with constraints, road user should be warned sufficiently well before to anticipate the same.

At many locations along the highway, Sight distance is obstructed due to local Obstructions viz. local shop booths along the shoulder, bunch of bushes, leap of soil, hills etc.

Extra widening of pavement at sharp radius curves should be done as per IRC 73-1980 ensuring extra space for large vehicles to facilitate minimum turning radius.

Following location for SH 39 have been identified for Alignment and Geometric improvements from Road safety consideration.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 15+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 33+700 (SH 39)

CH: KM 16+200 (SH 39)

CH: KM 19+200 (SH 39)

CH: KM 28+100 (SH 39)

CH: KM 28+500 (SH 39)

CH: KM 31+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 33+700 (SH 39)

CH: KM 46+500 (SH 39)

CH: KM 49+400 (SH 39)

CH: KM 47+000 (SH 39)



Page | 40

ii) Road Intersections

The Minimum turning radius for at grade junction should be made available as specified in IRC SP 41 Table 4.3.

Approaches to intersections should be provided with properly laid out guidance system in the form of signs and pavement markings.

The lighting of road intersections should be of higher intensity than along straight stretches so as to provide the necessary visual warning to approaching road users.

The at-grade separated junction below the grade separation should be designed with proper channelisation of traffic flow and to prevent undesirable movements.

Following location for SH 39 have been identified for intersection improvements from Road safety consideration.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 6+500 (SH 39)

CH: KM 14+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 43+500 (SH 39) iii) Facilities for Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrian, Cyclist and Motorcyclists)

As pedestrians are primarily involved in fatal accidents, more or less all along the stretch, footpath provided on urban locations should be made free from encroachment by hawkers and maintained properly.

For densely populated urban locations, railing barriers for pedestrians should be provided to control the movement of pedestrians.

Pedestrian crossing should be provided with flashing beacons. It must be clearly visible and should be followed after Rumble strips to reduce the speed of coming vehicles.

Following location for SH 39 have been identified for providing adequate facilities for vulnerable road users from Road safety consideration.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 9+800 (SH 39) iv) Structures Parapets and Approaches

Following location for SH 39 have been identified where Parapets and Approaches of Structures leads to act as Road safety Hazards due to poor hazard identification marking.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 14+000 (SH 39) v) Embankment

Anti-crash barriers is proposed at locations where embankment height is more than 3 m.



Page | 41

At approaches to bridges, W beam metal crash barriers is provided in continuation of the parapet on both the carriageway for at least 30 meter in addition to the hazard marker sign (Road safety circular issued by MORTH dated 27th April, 2010).

vi) Signage, Pavement Marking and Lightings

All signs and markings shall be of retro- reflective type only.

All curves with R < 750 m to be delineated on outer side of the curve from both the directions (for RH curve it will be on shoulder and for LH curve it will be on median), by chevron signs.

One way reflective studs shall be provided on edge lines and lane lines on the approach to an intersection or a high level bridge / culvert / ROB etc. with high embankment. Also such, studs shall be provided along the sharp curves.

Following location for SH 39 have been identified for providing adequate facilities of signage, pavement markings and lightings from Road safety consideration.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 6+500 (SH 39)

CH: KM 9+800 (SH 39)

CH: KM 14+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 32+200 (SH 39)

CH: KM 43+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 43+500 (SH 39)

CH: KM 8+000 (SH 39)

CH: KM 18+300 (SH 39)

CH: KM 19+200 (SH 39) vii) Traffic calming measures

Wherever the highway is passing through a built up area, speed limit signs up to level of 60 / 70 Kmph should be erected (Refer Road Safety circular issued by MORTH dated 27th April,2010)

Repeated bar markings (raised bar with gradually reducing spacing) with hot applied retro reflective thermo- plastic, white paints or Rumble strips shall be provided at the approached of built up areas

Raised Table Top type of speed calming measures (Raised platform of width equal to carriageway and height up to 10 mm) may also be used in urban locations. These are highly effective speed calming measure at slip roads of junctions (Refer Pedestrian Design Guidelines, UTIPEC, DDA 2009).

Following location for SH 39 have been identified for providing adequate facilities for traffic calming measures from Road safety consideration.

SH 39 At locations-

CH: KM 43+600 (SH 39)



Page | 42

Chapter 4 –CONCLUDING STATEMENT I have examined the section of the road referred to in chapter 1. The audit has been carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any features of the existing road that could be altered or removed to improve the safety of the proposal for all road users. The Audit findings are included in Section 4 of this report.

22 /05//2014 ………………… (Road Safety Auditor, SMEC) Reviewed by:

22 /05//2014 ………………….. (Team Leader, SMEC)

detailed project report vol. v road safety … · irc-sp-88-2010 manual on road safety audit ......

Documents