irr full rsa 3 report - whatdotheyknow

Sheffield Inner Relief Road Full Stage 3Safety Audit

Northern Section - Stage 2 For IRR Project Supervisor and IRR Project Design Team

Safety Audit: Ref: TE/16-083/BA682 Development Services Issue Status: REPORT Transport and Highways - Road Safety Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2009 of 126 © Sheffield City Council

SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2 FULL STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [COMPLETION] REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS - ROAD SAFETY Safety Audit Ref: TE/16-083/BA682 Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2009

L Sturch MRTPI Director Of Development Services Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH

The officer dealing with this Safety Audit is John Moseley, telephone 2736205 or e-mail: [email protected]




CONTENTS OF REPORT

Section Page S1.0 Introduction 3

S2.0 Scheme Description 6

S3.0 Items Raised At The Stage 2 Audit and Interim Stage 3 Audits 7 S4.0 Note For The Design Team - Unresolved Issues and Other Matters 9 S5.0 Items Forming This Full Stage 3 Audit 10

1.0 IRR Design Section 1 Safety Issues 10 2.0 IRR Design Section 2 Safety Issues 19

3.0 IRR Design Section 3 Safety Issues 29 4.0 IRR Design Section 4 Safety Issues 38 5.0 IRR Design Section 5 Safety Issues 52

6.0 IRR Design Section 6 Safety Issues 53

S6.0 Audit Team Statement 54 APPENDIX TO REPORT 55 LIST OF APPENDICES 56 Appendix A Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Substantial Completion 57

Appendix B Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Pre-Opening 81

Appendix C Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Prior to Wicker Surfacing 115

Appendix D Major Cyclist Issues Reported By The Cyclists` Forum 125




ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION STAGE 2

FULL STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [COMPLETION]

DRAFT REPORT INCLUDING DESIGN TEAM RESPONSES [WHERE APPROPRIATE] AND RSA TEAM COMMENTS [WHERE APPROPRIATE]

S 1.0 Introduction

S 1.1 This report results from a Full Stage 3 Road Safety Audit, carried out at the

request of the Project Supervisor [Steve Cosgrove @ Birse] by e-mail dated 2 May 2008.

The Audit Team Membership approved for this Audit was: John Moseley [Audit Team Leader for this Audit] Principal Engineer, Road Safety Team, Transport and Highways,

Development Services, Sheffield City Council

Specialist Advisors, appointed by the Audit Team for advice on matters In connection with their particular areas of expertise were: PC Ian Shelton [Traffic Issues] Road Safety Partnership Officer,

South Yorkshire Police Andy Wild [Cycling Issues] Transport Planner, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council, Richard Skelton [Cycling Issues] Transport Planner, Transport Planning, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council




Andrew Bennett [Traffic Signal Issues] Principal Engineer, Traffic Information and Control, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council

Brent Collier [Traffic Signal Issues] Principal Engineer, Traffic Information and Control, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council Brian Messider [Disability Access Issues] Access Officer, Development Services, Sheffield City Council Simon Ovenden [Disability Access Issues] Access Officer, Development Services, Sheffield City Council

S 1.2 The Audit was undertaken in accordance with Sheffield City Council’s Road

Safety Audit Standard 2005 and comprised an examination of the completed scheme based on documents provided at Stage 2 of the Audit and also subsequent revised drawings supplied by the Design Team or Project Supervisor to the RSA Team. For full details of these documents, see Appendix A the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report dated 24 April 2007.

S 1.3 As part of the Full Stage 3 Audit, the Auditor visited the site at various times

during daylight hours, and also on one occasion during darkness, with officers from South Yorkshire Police and engineers from the Transport and Highways Division of Sheffield City Council. Details of the site visits and attendees are as follows:

15 May 2008: commencing at 09.00 [Section 1 and part of Section 2]. Daytime visit - weather fine and road surface dry. Attendees: John Moseley, SCC; PC Ian Shelton, SYP; PC Stuart Williams, SYP, Andy Bennett, SCC. 23 May 2008: commencing at 09.00 [remainder of Section 1 and part of Section 3]. Daytime visit - weather fine and road surface dry. Attendees: PC Ian Shelton, SYP; PC Stuart Williams, SYP; Brent Collier, SCC. Site Visits Continued…




30 May 2008: commencing at 09.00 [part of Section 3 and part of section 4] Daytime visit - weather fine and road surface dry. Attendees: John Moseley, SCC; PC Ian Shelton, SYP; PC Stuart Williams, SYP 04 June 2008: commencing at 09.00 [remainder of Section 3 and remainder of section 4] Daytime visit - weather fine and road surface dry. Attendees: John Moseley, SCC; PC Ian Shelton, SYP; PC Stuart Williams, SYP; Brent Collier, SCC. 9 October 2008: commencing at 19.00 [all sections] Site visit during darkness - weather fine and road surface dry. Attendees: John Moseley, SCC; PC Ian Shelton, SYP; PC Stuart Williams, SYP; Andy Bennett, SCC.

S 1.4 For details of additional site visits in connection with Interim Stage 3 Audits,

see the respective reports at Appendix A,B and C of this report. S 1.5 Other ad-hoc site visits were made by the Auditor at various times during the

writing of this report and the most recent site visit was on 25 February 2009, at which time the weather was fine and the road surface was dry. At that time some accident and collision data had been received from the Police and this is reflected in some of the comments made in this [Stage 3 Audit] Draft Report.

S 1.6 The Full Stage 3 Audit Draft Report was completed on 27 February 2009. S.1.7 The Auditor is awaiting some feedback from the Cyclists Forum, via the

Specialist Advisors for cycling issues. These will be included in a later issue of this Stage 3 road Safety Audit Report.




S 2.0 Scheme Description

S 2.1 Sheffield Inner Relief Road Scheme - Northern Section Stage 2 Stage 2 of the Inner Relief Road comprises improvements to part of the strategic network around the central core of the city, between “Shalesmoor” in the west and “The Wicker” in the East. The scheme consists of approximately 1.4 km of dual carriageway with 17 signalised junctions, a new river crossing and a bridge under the Sheffield to Manchester Railway. Facilities are provided to assist pedestrians and cyclists with safe routes and crossings as well as public transport improvement measures. For a fuller description of the scheme together with additional details, see the Audit Brief at Appendix A of the Final Stage 2 Audit Report dated 24 April 2007.




S 3.0 Items Raised At The Stage 2 Audit And Interim Stage 3 Audits

S3.1 The safety aspects of the scheme at the detailed design stage were examined as part of the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit, carried out between August 2004 and 24 April 2007. An electronic copy of the Final Stage 2 Audit Report dated 24 April 2008 was emailed to the Project Supervisor on this date, albeit that the Appendix to the Report was not included at that time.

S3.2 All outstanding issues in the Stage 2 Audit were resolved either by discussion

or Arbitration by 4 May 2007 and the Stage 2 Audit was subsequently closed on this date.

S3.3 A signed hard copy of the full version of the Final Stage 2 Audit Report,

including the Appendix, was issued to Rob Davison of Highway Design, Street Force Design and Build, Carbrook, on 11 May 2007.

S3.4 It should be noted that construction of the project had commenced in

November 2004, despite Stage 2 of the Audit not being closed at that time. S3.4 Following the substantial completion of parts of Section 1, Section 2 and

section 3 of the project, an Interim Stage 3 Audit was carried out on these sections, as requested by the Project Supervisor by email dated 22 May 2007. An electronic copy of the report dated 20 June 2007 was emailed to the Project Supervisor. To date, only a Site Team Response has been received by the RSA Team.

S3.5 Given that no Formal Design Team Response has been received by the RSA

Team, some of the concerns and issues raised in the Interim Stage 3 Audit Report that have not already been addressed by the Site Team have been raised again in this Full Stage 3 Audit Draft Report. A copy of the Interim Stage 3 Audit Report [Report 1] dealing with safety issues in Sections 1,2 of the project and 3 dated 20 June 2007, is included at Appendix A.

S3.6 No Pre-Opening Stage 3 Audit was carried out prior to all sections of the

Inner Relief Road being opened up to traffic on 18 November 2008 due to the lateness of the request from the Project Supervisor [email late Friday evening of 16 November 2007, prior to the opening on Sunday 18 November 2007] . An Interim Stage 3 Audit was nevertheless carried out on the remainder of the scheme that had not been previously audited in June 2007, during the week commencing 19 November 2007 [after the actual opening date]. An electronic copy of this Interim Stage 3 Audit report dated 26 November 2007, was issued to the Project Supervisor but again, only a Site Team Response has been received by the RSA Team. Given that no Design Team Response has been received by the RSA Team, some of the concerns and issues raised in the Interim Stage 3 audit report, that have not been resolved by the Site Team, will be raised again in this Full Stage 3 Audit Report. A copy of the Interim Stage 3 Audit Report [Report 2] dated 26 November 2007 is included at Appendix B.




S3.7 An Interim Stage 3 Audit was also carried out on the Wicker section only, as requested by the Project Supervisor by email dated June 2007, prior to the Wicker being resurfaced. A copy of this Interim Stage 3 Report dated 12 June 2008 is included at Appendix C.




S 4.0 Notes For The Design Team - Unresolved Issues and Other Matters

S4.1 In accordance with the Arbitration Procedure [outlined in the Sheffield City Council Road Safety Audit Standard 2005], after the Design Team has given due consideration to the problems raised by the Audit Team [and meetings have taken place between the Design Team and the Audit Team] any changes made to the design shall be submitted to the Audit Team for that part of the scheme to be re-audited.

S4.2 Items in the Audit report that are not acted upon, either because they are felt

to be outside the terms of reference of the project or deemed not appropriate by the Design Team, should be included in an Exception Report. The Exception Report should be prepared by the Design Team, on behalf of the Project Sponsor, giving the reasons for rejection together with any alternative solutions and sent to the Arbiter with a copy to the Audit Team. The Arbiter is to be the Head of Transport and Highways or his nominees.

S4.3 It should be noted that due to the nature of the project and the limited audit staff resources available, it has not been possible for the auditor to revisit all sections of the project during daylight hours since the original site visits listed at item S1.3 were carried out. For this reason, it is possible that work to address some of the concerns raised at this stage 3 audit may already have been undertaken and some unfinished work noted in the report may possibly have also been completed, prior to the publication of this [stage 3 audit] report.

S4.4 Due to the extensive nature of this project, there may be items identified in

the Stage 3 Audit that are immediately outside the actual site boundary or at tie-ins and whilst not being directly connected with the Stage 3 Audit they may nevertheless be a concern. Such items will normally be reported as Comments.




S 5.0 Items Forming This [Full Stage 3] Audit Report 1.0 PENISTONE ROAD / HOYLE STREET / SHALESMOOR / MOORFIELDS:

PENISTONE ROAD TO GIBRALTER STREET - AS REFERRED TO AT STAGE 2 OF THE AUDIT Subject to some street names being changed following the completion of the new Northern Section of the Sheffield Inner Relief Road, this Section 1 of the project should now be referred to as: PENISTONE ROAD / SHALESMOOR ROUNDABOUT / SHALESMOOR Penistone Road Tie-in to Shalesmoor Roundabout Drawings supplied [and revised] at Stage 2 of the Audit that was finalised on 24 April 2007.

1. 1 COMMENT

Location: Penistone Road, junction with the link road to Infirmary Road opposite North British Steel Works [shown on Traffic Signs Location Plan number TM/BA682/1200/1.1A dated July 2004]. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians and drivers. Pedestrians crossing the link road from south to north have limited visibility of traffic approaching from their right due to overgrown bushes in the planting area to the rear of the footway. Pedestrians would be particularly vulnerable as buses slip off to the left onto this link road from the nearby bus stop on Penistone Road.

RECOMMENDATION Arrange for the overgrown bushes to be cut back.

1.2 COMMENT

Location: Penistone Road, junction with the link road to Infirmary Road opposite North British Steel Works [shown on Traffic Signs Location Plan number TM/BA682/1200/1.1A dated July 2004].

Summary: Possible unintentional abuse of the traffic signals due to overgrown bushes masking the traffic signal heads - same bushes as referred to in item 1.1.

RECOMMENDATION As at item 1.1, arrange for the overgrown bushes to be cut back.




1.3 COMMENT

Location: Penistone Road, intersection with Green Lane [physically closed to traffic].

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians crossing away from the signalised crossing facilities. There is an obvious pedestrian route along Green Lane to and from the bus and tram facilities on Penistone Road and subsequently there a risk of conflicts occurring as a result of pedestrians crossing away from the nearby signalised crossing facilities. RECOMMENDATION Provide a short section of pedestrian guard rail on the east side of the signalised crossing facilities, at the Green Lane closure.

1.4 PROBLEM

Location: Penistone Road, right turn slip-off from Infirmary Road to Penistone Road opposite the intersection with Green Lane [physically closed to traffic].

Summary: Risk of drivers making the right slip-off movement, leaving the carriageway and overrunning the steep embankment that exists near the intersection of Penistone road with the Shalesmoor Roundabout. It should be noted that this problem was also identified in the Addendum to the Stage 2 Audit Draft report - item 1.32 and then in the Interim Stage 3 Road Safety Audit [Substantial Completion - Pre-Opening] report dated 20 June 2007. Whilst originally accepting the Design Team Response at that time of completing the Addendum to the Stage 2 Audit Draft Report, albeit reluctantly, this problem is now rated as a moderate to high risk [based on the risk assessment procedure in accordance with the current Requirements for Road Restraint Systems]. RECOMMENDATION Provide a short section of safety fence / pedestrian guard rail / higher kerbs at this location to safeguard drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.




Hoyle Street Tie-in to Shalesmoor Roundabout 1.7 COMMENT

Location: Hoyle Street opposite Burnt Tree Lane. Summary: Sign reference number 507813 not yet erected on poles already in place. RECOMMENDATION

Complete the necessary work on the sign.

1.8 COMMENT

Location: Hoyle Street approach to Shalesmoor Roundabout, approximately in the area adjacent to sign reference 507907. Summary: Risk of shunts occurring at the traffic signals. The high friction surfacing in this area appears to be very worn and shunts may occur when there is heavy braking.

RECOMMENDATION Renew the high friction surfacing or at the very least, arrange for street force Maintenance to inspect this area of carriageway.

1.9 PROBLEM

Location: Hoyle Street approach to Shalesmoor Roundabout.

Summary: Risk of shunts or other conflicts occurring due to the primary signal head being obscured. The primary signal head on the nearside is obscured by a tram sign and a keep-right roundel. The secondary signal head on the offside is too far away to be particularly conspicuous, given that the signal could be obscured for drivers in the nearside lane, by large vehicles in the adjacent two lanes. RECOMMENDATION

Reposition the primary signal head on to a higher signal post or crank the existing signal post away from the Tram sign. Alternatively, consideration could be given to repositioning the Tram sign and keep-right roundel.




1.10 COMMENT

Location: Hoyle Street, near the tram stop - existing tactile crossing point on northbound side, opposite the splitter island.

Summary: Potential trip hazard for pedestrians caused by raised service box cover.

RECOMMENDATION Adjust the height of the service box cover to eliminate the trip hazard. Shalesmoor Roundabout

1.5 GENERAL COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor Roundabout. From the detailed design stage, it is recalled that the street lighting at the roundabout was proposed to be on high masts. This does not now seem to be the case in all situations - as observed from the night time site visit carried out on 9 October 2008. Also, the present street lighting appears to be a mixture of low and high pressure sodium. RECOMMENDATION Comments from the Design Team or the Project Supervisor with regard to this situation would be welcomed.

1.6 PROBLEM

Location: Cornish Street junction with Shalesmoor Roundabout Summary: Drivers emerging from Cornish Street onto the roundabout instead of turning left as directed. It should be noted that this problem also identified at the Final Stage 2 Audit - item 1.1. The Design Team Response was not accepted. Whilst the Design Team advised that the splitter island extends fully across the mouth of Cornish Street and that no further physical measures could be employed to prevent these movements [given that the movements were mainly carried out intentionally] such movements are still a major concern, particularly if any drivers unwittingly follow a vehicle in front and then find themselves in a conflict situation on the roundabout.




RECOMMENDATION

The Audit Team appreciates that it may not be possible to extend the splitter island far enough to physically prevent this movement but nevertheless considers that if the hatched markings at the nib of the splitter island were extended north-westwards, this would go some way towards further discouraging drivers from attempting to carry out this movement.

1.5 COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor Roundabout. Summary: Risk of vehicle/vehicle conflicts and vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts. Given the complexity of this signalised roundabout, there would be an increased risk of conflicts occurring in the event of the traffic signals failing to operate due to faults and during the ensuing periods awaiting signal maintenance. It is understood that some serious injury accidents have already occurred at some signalised junctions of this Northern Section of the Inner Relief as a result of the traffic signals not being in operation due to faults. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the traffic signals are maintained suitably and in the event of any signal failure, ensure that the problems are rectified quickly.

Shalesmoor

1.11 COMMENT Location: Dun Fields - road closure at Shalesmoor.

Summary: Risk of pedestrian conflicts. Dun Fields is closed to traffic at the junction with Shalesmoor by bollards across the back of the footway but there is an open space wide enough to allow the passage of a normal-sized vehicle. There is evidence that drivers have been driving over the footway from Dun Fields to access Shalesmoor and this is a danger to pedestrians. It should be noted that this problem was also identified in the Interim Stage 3 Report dated 20 June 2007 - item 1.11, at Appendix A.




RECOMMENDATION Provide additional bollards. Whilst this may have been an existing situation it is nevertheless a concern at the present time, given that Dun Fields is adjacent to newly constructed section of highway. The Design Team Response, following the Interim Stage 3 audit report dated 20 June 2007 stated that: “Traffic could always traverse the footway to gain access to Shalesmoor at this location, therefore additional bollards that this has always occurred and any additional bollards would be ineffectual”. This is not acceptable. Bollards should be provided - as originally recommended in the Interim Stage 3 Audit Report dated 20 June 2007.

1.12 GENERAL PROBLEM Location: Shalesmoor, junction with Ebenezer Street.

Summary: Channel blocks at tactile crossing makes pedestrians vulnerable. See also Interim Stage 3 Report dated 20 June 200- item 1.11 at Appendix A. The channel blocks in front of the tactile crossings are the same colour as the kerbs and this encourages pedestrians to stand in the road when waiting to cross. This is a general problem throughout the scheme and numerous instances of this situation have been observed, particularly involving elderly pedestrians.

RECOMMENDATION

The Design Team Response, following the Interim Stage 3 audit report dated 20 June 2007 is not acceptable. If channel blocks are vitally necessary to ensure that the minimal upstand at the crossing point is achievable, there is a simple solution to the problem that involves applying a surface treatment to the channel block to darken it so there is some colour differential between the channel and the actual road surfacing.




1.13 PROBLEM Location: Shalesmoor, junction with Ebenezer Street.

Summary: Abuse of the no-entry Order: drivers from Ebenezer Street accessing Shalesmoor. There is some abuse occurring at this point involving drivers from Ebenezer Street/Acorn Street accessing Shalesmoor via the one-way plug at the junction. In such situations, conflicts could occur. It should be noted that there is some inconsistency in the sizes of the No-entry signs ref. 507800 and 507801A, which may have some bearing on this situation. RECOMMENDATION Replace sign ref. 507800A with a larger sign face. Additionally, provide one-way arrow markings on the road surface adjacent to the one-way signs ref 507789 and 507788, to make drivers on Ebenezer Street/Acorn Street further aware of on-coming traffic from Shalesmoor and therefore be less likely to abuse of the No-Entry Traffic Order.

1.14 COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor, bend in the road in the vicinity of Ebenezer Street/Bowling Green Street. Summary: Near conflicts occurring involving sideswipes between larger vehicles travelling inbound. The advisory cycle lane along this section of road effectively narrows the carriageway running lane widths to 3.0 metres. Whilst drivers are permitted to over-run the cycle lane when it is not in use by cyclists, most drivers keep to the normal marked out running lanes. As a result, there is very limited space for two large vehicles [including buses] to run side by side. Numerous near-conflict situations have been observed and there is evidence of kerb strikes and scuffing on the central reservation along this [inbound] section.

RECOMMENDATION In hindsight wider lane widths should have been provided, although it is accepted that this is not now a serious option. A further option would be to remove the cycle lane but this would not be without problems and could attract criticism form Cycle Groups as the cycle lanes contribute to general cycle safety. Any comments in respect of possible improvements [i.e signing or other measures] from the Project Supervisor or the Design Team would be welcomed.




1.15 PROBLEM

Location: Bowling Green Street, near the junction with Shalesmoor.

Summary: Risk of pedestrian conflicts. There is a large gap in the line of bollards to the rear of the footway and this encourages drivers from Bowling Green Street to drive over the footway to access Shalesmor. At the time of the site visit there was evidence to suggest that such movements were occurring. This is also a similar situation to that outlined at item 1.10 with respect to Dun Fields. RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding the Design Team Response to the concerns outlined in item 1.11 of the Interim Stage 3 Report dated 20 June 2007, additional bollards should be provided at this location to avoid any potential pedestrian conflicts.

1.16 PROBLEM

Location: Bowling Green Street, near the junction with Shalesmoor.

Summary: Cyclists vulnerable due to parked vehicles. A short length of cycle lane has been provided centrally on Bowling Green Street but the double yellow lines on each side of the road at this location do not extend far enough from the closure to keep the road at each side of the cycle lane clear of parked vehicles. As a result, cyclists on the cycle route from the direction of Shalesmoor do not have a good view of any approaching traffic on Bowling Green Street/ or from Ward Street/South Parade and would therefore be vulnerable.

RECOMMENDATION Extend the double yellow lines from the Shalesmoor junction up to the junction with Ward Street, at the very least .




1.17 GENERAL COMMENT Location: All locations in this section of the project.

Summary: Potential confusion for drivers with the Wayfarer signing and other strategic signing, possibly leading to conflicts at complex junctions. This problem was reported in the Strategic Signing Review Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report included at Appendix J of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report for the Sheffield Inner Relief Road Northern Section 2, dated 24 April 2007. Given the site visits and observations carried out to date on the completed scheme, the views of the Auditor have not changed.

1.18 GENERAL COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor Roundabout Summary: Risk of potential conflict situations for cyclists. See also FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT - APPENDIX D

Approaching this roundabout on Hoyle Street, a cycle lane is provided on the nearside and shortly after this the tram tracks traverse the road at a fairly narrow angle. Although the nearside kerb and track alignment has not changed, other road users feel that cyclists should be in the cycle lane and don’t expect them to leave it, which they need to do to cross the tracks at a wider angle. The cycle lane is not wide enough to facilitate crossing the tracks safely [at right angles] and it may be that the traffic lanes were wider previously. RECOMMENDATION Whilst the position of the tram tracks pre-date this scheme, one option to address this concern would be to widen the cycle lane on one side of the tracks so that cyclists can cross them at right angles and so would feel so vulnerable. A further option would be to provide a suitable sign to alert drivers to cyclists moving out of the cycle lane. Comments from the Design Team would be welcomed with regard to this issue.




2.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD: GIBRALTER STREET TO CORPORATION STREET - AS REFERRED TO AT STAGE 2 OF THE AUDIT Subject to some street names being changed, following the completion of the new Northern Section of the Sheffield Inner Relief Road, this Section 2 of the project should now be referred to as: SHALESMOOR: GIBRALTAR STREET TO CORPORATION STREET, INCLUDING GIBRALTAR STREET AND CORPORATION STREET

Gibraltar Street

2.1 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street near junction with Shalesmoor - cycle route on the west side.

Summary: Confusion for cyclists, potentially leading to conflicts. There is a lack of cycle symbol markings at the cycle route in the footway on this side of the road. Due to the lack of cycle markings, there is no read-through for cyclists from the cycle route at the opposite side of the road therefore the route ahead for them is not clear.

RECOMMENDATION Provide cycle symbol markings on this side of the road.

2.2 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street, near junction with Shalesmoor - private premises on the east side of Gibraltar Street.

Summary: Risk of pedestrian conflicts. There is evidence of drivers over-running the footway at this location from the private premises, in order to turn left from Gibraltar Street to the Inner Relief Road. Such vehicle movements will endanger pedestrians. This problem would be more acute during darkness. RECOMMENDATION Provide suitable reflectorised bollards on the footway build-out to prevent the outlined movements.




2.3 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street, near junction with Shalesmoor - footway build - out on the east side of the road. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving footway users. There is evidence of kerb strikes on the footway build-out, indicating that there have been incidents involving drivers of large vehicles colliding with the build-out directly after turning into the junction from Shalesmoor. This could endanger pedestrians using the footway at this location. This problem would be more acute during darkness.

RECOMMENDATION Provide suitable reflectorised bollards on the footway build-out, to further highlight the build-out for drivers turning into the junction.

2.4 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street, footway build-out on the south side of the road to the west of the junction with Furnace Hill. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving footway users. There is evidence of kerb strikes on the footway build-out, indicating that there have been incidents involving drivers of large vehicles colliding with the build-out. This build-out is very prominent on the apex of a bend and projects into the road beyond the parking bay on the adjacent section of road [Furnace Hill to West Bar] from where drivers are approaching. This problem is more acute when no vehicles are parked in the parking bay. As a result, any kerb strikes could endanger any pedestrians using the footway at this location. Vehicle occupants would also be vulnerable if the build-out was hit at higher speeds. This problem would be more acute during darkness. See item 2.12 of the Final Stage 2 Audit Report following feedback received from the Design Team on 24.10.05.

RECOMMENDATION Provide suitable reflectorised bollards on the footway build-out, to make the build-out more conspicuous for drivers. It should be noted that the revised drawing supplied with the Design Team feedback at the Stage 2 Audit did not include bollards and although the layout was agreed by the Auditor, this was on the understanding that bollards would be provided.




2.5 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street, footway build-outs on each side of the Lambert Street. junction Summary: Risk of conflicts involving footway users. As in items 2.3 and 2.4, there is evidence of kerb strikes on the footway build-out, indicating that there have been incidents involving drivers of large vehicles over-running or colliding with the build-out. This particular build-out is very prominent on a sweeping radius where drivers turn left from Lambert Street and also projects into the road beyond the channel line of the adjacent section of road where drivers are approaching from the West Bar Roundabout. As a result, any kerb strikes could endanger any pedestrians using the footway at this location. Vehicle occupants would also be vulnerable if the build-out was hit at higher speeds. This problem would be more acute during darkness. Because the build-out provides a large area of footway [due to the severe taper from junction radius, this could encourage pedestrians to cross away from the nearby designated crossing facilities. See also item 2.12 of the Final Stage 2 Audit Report - following feedback from the Design Team on 24.10.05.

RECOMMENDATION Ideally, the taper from the junction radius could be reduced to make the footway area smaller and therefore provide less encouragement for pedestrians to cross away from the nearby designated crossing facilities. Suitable reflectorised bollards would also be needed with such an alteration to make the build-out more conspicuous for drivers. At the very least, provide suitable reflectorised bollards on the existing footway build-out.

It should be noted that the revised drawing supplied with the Design Team feedback did not include bollards and although the layout was agreed by the auditor, this was on the understanding that bollards would be provided.




Shalesmoor - Gibraltar Street to Corporation Street 2.6 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesmoor - pedestrian crossing east of the junction with Gibraltar Street.

Summary: Risk of pedestrians crossing with “live” traffic or crossing away from the designated crossing facility. Pedestrians waiting at the crossing facility have a long wait for the pedestrian signal after pressing the control button. As a result, pedestrians may take undue risks at the crossing and conflicts may occur. RECOMMENDATION The auditor would welcome comments from the Design Team with regard to this issue. West Bar Roundabout

2.7 COMMENT

Location: West Bar roundabout - Crossings on West Bar and West Bar Green side of the roundabout.

Summary: Lack of tactile buttons on the control panels of the above two Crossings. At the time of the site visit, tactile buttons at the above two Crossings were not in place.

RECOMMENDATION Provide tactile buttons at the Crossings if not already in place by the publication date of this report.




Corporation Street

2.8 PROBLEM Location: Corporation Street, junction with Spring Street East.

Summary: Risk of drivers turning right from Spring Street East and colliding with southbound drivers travelling along Corporation Street from the Shalesmoor junction. Drivers turning right from Spring Street East could inadvertently turn onto the wrong side of the splitter island and collide with opposing vehicle flows, given that there are neither arrow markings at the exit from the roundabout at the Shalesmoor junction or No-Entry signs on the east side of the splitter island, to warn drivers of opposing traffic. This problem was outlined in the Interim Stage 3 Audit [Report 2] dated 26 November 2007, a copy of which is included at Appendix B of this report. RECOMMENDATION Provide No-Entry signing on one side of the splitter island or at the very least straight-ahead arrow markings at each side of the nose of the splitter island on Corporation Street [adjacent to sign reference 507678], to warn drivers.

2.9 PROBLEM Location: Corporation Street, junction with Water Street.

Summary: Risk of drivers turning right from Water Street and colliding with southbound drivers travelling along Corporation Street from its junction with Shalesmoor. Similar problem as outlined at item 2.8. There is a lack of clear signing or road markings on Corporation Street at this location to warn drivers of opposing traffic. RECOMMENDATION Provide a No-Right turn sign on Water Street at its junction with Corporation Street, No-Entry signing on one side of the splitter island or a Turn-Left Only sign on the splitter island opposite the Water Street junction. The straight-ahead arrow marking at the east side of the nose of the splitter island on Corporation Street [adjacent to sign reference 507678], recommended at item 2.8, whould also be helpful in this situation.




2.10 PROBLEM Location: Corporation Street, junction with Plum Street.

Summary: Risk of drivers turning right from Plum Street directly on to the Corporation Street Roundabout and colliding with southbound drivers either entering the roundabout or travelling along Corporation Street from Shalesmoor. RECOMMENDATION Provide a No-Right turn sign on Water Street at the junction, No-Entry signing on one side of the splitter island or a Turn-Left Only sign on the splitter island opposite the Water Street junction. The straight-ahead arrow marking at the east side of the nose of the splitter island on Corporation Street [adjacent to sign reference 507678], recommended at item 2.8, would also be helpful in this situation. Corporation Street Roundabout

2.11 COMMENT

Location: Corporation Street Roundabout - splitter island at the north east side of the roundabout. Summary: Risk of conflicts resulting from drivers colliding with the splitter island. There is evidence of kerb strikes on the north east nose of the splitter island. Drivers hitting the splitter island at normal speeds of around 30 mph could overturn or be deflected into the path of other drivers travelling in the same direction. This problem could be more acute at les busy times when vehicle speeds are normally higher. RECOMMENDATION Possible options for a solution include rounding-off the nose of the splitter island [and re-positioning sign ref. 507648] or providing more prominent road markings at the intersection of Shalesmoor and the roundabout, to increase driver awareness. The RSA Team would welcome comments from the Design Team on this situation and the suggested options.




2.12 PROBLEM Location: Corporation Street Roundabout - south west side of the roundabout [right turn approach onto Shalesmoor from Corporation Street].

Summary: Evidence of drivers colliding with sign reference 507670A. After entering the roundabout from Corporation Street, drivers are faced with a two lane arrangement on the roundabout, both lanes having straight-ahead arrow markings. Drivers in the nearside lane are guided into the above sign as a result of the alignment of the radius and there was some evidence of damage to the sign at the time of the site visit. There is also a section of cycle lane in the central area of Shalesmoor adjacent to the kerbed end of the central refuge island and cyclists in this area are vulnerable, given the situation outlined.

RECOMMENDATION A possible option to address this situation would be to square up the kerbline at the above point, given that drivers are guided right by the road markings and drivers would not necessarily be turning left on to Shalesmoor. The RSA Team would welcome comments from the Design Team on this situation and the suggested options.

2.13 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street Roundabout - two lane arrangement in the central area of Shalesmoor, west side of the roundabout [right turn onto Shalesmoor from Corporation Street].

Summary: Conflict situations and near side-swipe collisions have been observed in the central area, involving right turning drivers from Corporation Street. The likely cause of the above near-conflict situations appears to be either poor lane discipline by drivers or drivers approaching the right turn and making the right turn too fast. The straight-ahead arrows in the approach lanes - as mentioned at item 2.12, could also contribute to the above situations.




RECOMMENDATION Amend the arrow markings in the right turn approach lanes to the roundabout, to provide better guidance for right turning drivers and also increase the width of the gap in the central area to provide more space for right turning drivers who would be making the right turn movement side by side. A “Rest on Red” signal period could be incorporated to reduce approach speeds - at less busy times of the day and also through the night, when speeds of right turners through the central area may be higher. It should be noted that the above problem was highlighted at item 2.4 of the Interim Stage 3 Road Safety Audit Report [see Appendix B] submitted to the Project Supervisor by email on 26 November 2007, with a recommendation for remedial work but no action was taken and the Auditor was not informed of a reason for this.

2.14 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street Roundabout - signalised pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians crossing away from the designated crossing facilities. During site visits at various times of the day, pedestrians have been observed crossing diagonally at the long central island away from the facilities. The original proposals included pedestrian guard rail at this location to deter such movements but the guardrail proposals were omitted from the scheme because of economic reasons, against Road Safety Advice and without referral to the Arbitration Procedure. See Final Stage 2 Audit Report dated 24 April 2007 - Appendix O. For a fuller outline of this problem - see item 2.5 of the Interim Stage 3 Audit Report dated 26 November 2007 at Appendix B. It should be noted that this location does not concur with the City Council`s adopted Policy for omitting guard rail at city centre sites, on the basis of lower speeds. Due to the horizontal alignment of Shalesmoor at this location, vehicle speeds are well above the 20 mph threshold whereby the Policy dictates that guard rail should not be provided.

RECOMMENDATION Provide guard railing at this location as originally proposed, given that there does not appear to be any scope to alter the horizontal alignment of the road or to introduce traffic calming in order to reduce traffic speeds to 20 mph or below.




2.15 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street citybound - car park access nearest West Bar Roundabout.

Summary: Potential hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. A tactile crossing is located at each side of the above car park access but a traffic sign is sited in the footway at the top side of the crossing, in a direct line where pedestrians will be walking - towards West Bar Roundabout. The sign pole is a hazard for visually impaired pedestrians walking along Corporation Street and crossing the access. RECOMMENDATION Re-position the sign to the rear of the footway, away from tactile crossings.

2.16 COMMENT

Location: Corporation Street Roundabout. Summary: Potential collisions as a result of unauthorised traffic movements. During the night visit it was noted that the Ahead-Only arrow roundels on the signal heads at the roundabout were not illuminated. This could be confusing for drivers during darkness, resulting in some unauthorised traffic movements being carried out.

RECOMMENDATION

Illuminate the Ahead-Only arrow roundels [or rectify the fault], whichever is appropriate.

2.17 COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor Roundabout. Summary: Risk of vehicle/vehicle conflicts and vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts. Given the complexity of this signalised roundabout, there would be an increased risk of conflicts occurring in the event of the traffic signals failing to operate due to faults and during the ensuing periods awaiting signal maintenance. It is understood that some serious injury accidents have already occurred at some signalised junctions of this Northern Section of the Inner Relief as a result of the traffic signals not being in operation due to faults.




RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the traffic signals are maintained suitably and in the event of any signal failure, the problems are rectified quickly.

2.18 GENERAL COMMENT

Location: All locations in this section of the project.

Summary: Potential confusion for drivers with the Wayfarer signing and other strategic signing, possibly leading to conflicts at complex junctions. This problem was reported in the Strategic Signing Review Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report included at Appendix J of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report for the Sheffield Inner Relief Road Northern Section 2, dated 24 April 2007.

Given the site visits and observations carried out to date on the completed scheme, the views of the Auditor have not changed.

2.19 CONCERN

Location: West Bar Roundabout Summary: Risk of potential conflict situations for cyclists See also FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT - APPENDIX D

Cyclists approaching this roundabout and travelling south along Corporation Street are in the nearside cycle lane. The cycle lane stops short of the roundabout and motorists entering the roundabout cut the corner of the entry radius and endanger cyclists. Because of the uphill approach in this direction and the stop line and ASL being set well back from the roundabout, cyclists are vulnerable as they would find it difficult to escape from an ensuing situation. RECOMMENDATION The RSA Team cannot identify a solution to address this concern and therefore would welcome comments from the Design Team.




3.0 NNER RELIEF ROAD [IRR]: CORPORATION STREET GYRATORY TO NURSERY STREET – AS REFERRED TO AT STAGE 2 OF THE AUDIT

Subject to some street names being changed, following the completion of the new Northern Section of the Sheffield Inner Relief Road, this Section 3 of the project should now be referred to as: SHALESMOOR: CORPORATION STREET ROUNDABOUT TO BRIDGEHOUSES ROUNDABOUT; BRIDGHOUSES ROUNDABOUT; DEREK DOOLEY WAY - BRIDGEHOUSES ROUNDABOUT TO SAVILE STREET LINK Shalesmoor at the Alma Street / Bridge Street junction

3.1 COMMENT

Location: Alma Street - uncontrolled crossing point at the junction with Shalesmoor [northbound].

Summary: Pedestrians using the uncontrolled crossing point are vulnerable. Near conflicts have been observed involving pedestrians crossing Alma Street at this location due to the width of the uncontrolled crossing point and possible confusion with traffic directions at the junction.

RECOMMENDATION Whilst it is accepted that narrowing the crossing width may not be an option, at the very least, provide LOOK BOTH WAYS markings at each side of the crossing point. This would be consistent with other similar locations throughout the project.

3.2 COMMENT

Location: Shalesmoor - northbound carriageway, north of the junction with Alma Street.

Summary: Pedestrians crossing at this point are vulnerable.

Near conflicts have been observed involving pedestrians crossing at the cycle crossing point, away from the designated pedestrian crossing facilities, when the traffic signals on Shalesmoor are at red.

RECOMMENDATION

None. Any comments from the Project Supervisor or the Design Team would nevertheless be welcomed.




3.3 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesmoor, junction with Plum Lane.

Summary: Pedestrians crossing Plum Lane in both directions are vulnerable.

Near conflicts have been observed involving pedestrians crossing Plum Lane, mainly from north to south. The reason for this is that southbound drivers [from the direction of Bridgehouses Roundabout] can make the left turn into Plum Lane at speed, given the horizontal alignment of the junction. Whilst the numbers of drivers making this turn throughout the day may not be high, the safety of pedestrians crossing at the junction with traffic approaching from behind them, is nevertheless a concern. Cyclists travelling in the cycle lane that crosses this junction would also be vulnerable in the above circumstances and incidents have been observed .

RECOMMENDATION

Provide LOOK BOTH WAYS markings at each side of the crossing point. This would be consistent with other similar locations throughout the project. The Auditor does not have any suggestions to address the vulnerability of cyclists at this location but the Design Team may nevertheless wish to comment on the situation. Corporation Street, junction with Bridgehouses [northwest junction of the roundabout]

3.4 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street junction with Bridgehouses - traffic signal located on the island adjacent to the stop line. Summary: Signal is confusing for drivers. Drivers travelling ahead to the the IRR from Corporation Street and approaching the junction in the two lanes marked as A61and with a straight-ahead arrow, may not see the traffic signal as the signal head is at the wrong angle. Any possible confusion could lead to sudden braking or late lane changing and this could result in conflicts. This problem was outlined in the Interim Stage 3 Audit [Report 2] dated 26 November 2007, a copy of which is included at Appendix B of this report. RECOMMENDATION Re-align the signal head.




Bridgehouses Roundabout

3.4 PROBLEM

Location: South side of roundabout - right turn from Cutlers Gate to Bridgehouses.

Summary: Right turn is tight for large vehicles. Near conflicts [side-swipes] have been observed involving right turning large vehicles and other right turning vehicles in adjacent lanes, either on the approach to the signal stop lines or when moving off from the stop lines. This is mainly due to large vehicles having to straddle two lanes when turning right, possibly as a result of the right turn lanes being tight. Also, the two Ahead lanes on the west side of the roundabout marked as the A61 are very narrow and drivers, particularly drivers of large vehicles, appear to have difficulty in turning right into these narrow lanes from wider lanes without moving into the path of drivers in the adjacent lanes. The directional arrows and destination markings for the A61are a considerable distance away from the actual [tight] right turn at the south side of the roundabout. Poor lane discipline by drivers [of large vehicles] may be because they are making late decisions and then have to make sudden lane changes in the gap in the central reservation. Nevertheless, drivers of normal-sized vehicles are vulnerable in such circumstances.

RECOMMENDATION Widen the gap in the central reservation to provide more clearance and space for two vehicles to make turning movements at this junction. In addition, provide duplicate arrow markings and destination markings in the two lanes immediately in front of the signal stop lines at the south side of the roundabout. This should encourage better lane discipline for right turners and overcome potential conflict situations.

3.5 COMMENT

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout.

Summary: Summary: Potential collisions as a result of unauthorised traffic movements. During the night visit it was noted that the Ahead-Only arrow roundels on the signal heads at the roundabout were not illuminated. This could be confusing for drivers during darkness, resulting in some unauthorised traffic movements being carried out.




RECOMMENDATION

Illuminate the Ahead-Only arrow roundels [or rectify the fault], whichever is appropriate.

3.6 PROBLEM

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout junction with Bridghouses - signal stop line at the trapezoidal shaped island in the central area.

Summary: Risk of rear end collisions. The stop line in the central area, for drivers travelling straight ahead in a northbound direction from Shalesmoor to Chatham Street, is positioned too far back and does not appear to be in the position shown on drawing TM/BA682/1200/3B. As a result, drivers of vehicles waiting at the stop line to proceed to Chatham Road, can have the rear ends of their vehicles protruding into the running lane for vehicles [buses, taxis and cyclists] crossing this junction from Nursery Street. Whilst the configuration of the signals would not normally result in conflicting flows, there may be some occasions such as at busy times or when the signals are not functioning correctly when the outlined problems are likely to occur.

RECOMMENDATION Re-position the signal stop line further forward if this is now possible. 3.7 PROBLEM

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout, junction with Cutlers Gate - footway on the north side of the junction.

Summary: Traffic signs reference 507978 and 507945 causing obstructions in the footway. The above large traffic signs are positioned centrally in the footway at this location and are potentially hazardous for elderly, disabled and visually impaired pedestrians.

RECOMMENDATION Reposition the traffic signs to the rear of the footway where they would not be hazardous for certain pedestrian groups.




3.8 COMMENT

Location: Nursery Street junction with Bridgehouses Roundabout.

Summary: Many pedestrians observed crossing in a direct line [across the splitter islands] from the footway on the south side of Nursery Street to the footway on the north side of Nursery Street, rather than using the designated three-stage pedestrian crossing point. As a result, pedestrians are vulnerable to being hit by vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION Ideally, some form of pedestrian deterrent, such as pedestrian guard rail or higher kerbs should be provided to address the above situation.

3.9 PROBLEM

Location: Nursery Street junction with Bridgehouses Roundabout - contra-flow cycle route [adjacent to the triangular splitter island] that runs from west to east across the junction and terminates at a gap in the splitter island. Summary: Cyclists travelling in the contra-flow cycle lane are vulnerable. Conflicts have been observed between buses travelling east to west between the sections of bus lane and cyclists in the contra-flow cycle lane.

RECOMMENDATION The provision of a suitable sign to warn bus drivers of on-coming cyclists would possibly overcome this problem, to some extent.

3.10 PROBLEM Location: Cutlers Gate eastbound junction with Bridgehouses Roundabout. Summary: Inadvertent lane changing could lead to side-swipe conflicts.

The arrow marking in the nearside lane has no destination markings. This is inconsistent with the other two lanes and some driver confusion ahs been observed, that could lead to side-swipe conflicts occurring.

RECOMMENDATION Provide the respective destination markings to accompany the arrow marking in the nearside lane.




3.11 COMMENT

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout Summary: Risk of vehicle/vehicle conflicts and vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts. Given the complexity of this signalised roundabout, there would be an increased risk of conflicts occurring in the event of the traffic signals failing to operate due to faults and during the ensuing periods awaiting signal maintenance. It is understood that some serious injury accidents have already occurred at some signalised junctions of this Northern Section of the Inner Relief as a result of the traffic signals not being in operation due to faults. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the traffic signals are maintained suitably and in the event of any signal failure, the problems are rectified quickly.

3.12 PROBLEM Location: Pitsmoor Road junction with Bridgehouses.

Summary: Near conflict situations observed involving shunts and head-on collisions. Some drivers travelling down Pitsmoor Road and turning right onto Bridgehouses have been observed to hesitate or brake suddenly when crossing the eastbound carriageway of Bridgehouses [to turn right in the gap in the central reservation], causing near-shunt conflicts to occur. In such situations, there is also a likelihood that these drivers may attempt to turn right on the wrong side of the carriageway and this would result in head-on collisions occurring. There does appear to be some confusion for drivers at this junction because of the lack of guidance for drivers making the right turn from Pitsmoor Road. RECOMMENDATION Provide an arrow marking in the gap in the central reservation to guide right turning drivers from Pitsmoor Road. Also, provide direction arrow markings in each lane of the eastbound carriageway of Mowbray Street at the approach to the junction with Pitsmoor Road, to deter drivers from Pitsmoor Road turning onto the wrong side of the carriageway. Ideally, a NO ENTRY sign should be provided at the intersection with the eastbound carriageway of Bridgehouses, to make drivers more aware of the correct the right turning movement but this could be added at a later date if the arrow markings recommended do not address the problem outlined.




3.13 PROBLEM Location: Junction of Pitsmoor Road with Chatham Road.

Summary: Risk of head-on conflicts due to possible confusion for drivers. Drivers travelling towards the junction from Pitsmoor are faced with a One-Way sign to direct them along Pitsmoor Road [towards Bridgehouses] and a No-Entry sign to prevent them travelling the wrong way along Chatham Street. The No-Entry sign is relatively small and because of this it is not particularly conspicuous for drivers waiting at the signal stop line that is set back some distance from the junction. Also, a straight-ahead arrow marking on Pitsmoor Road that is positioned some distance away from the junction and is not adjacent to the One-Way sign is also not particularly conspicuous. As a result, some drivers may overlook the signing and markings and enter Chatham Street, coming into conflict with opposing traffic. RECOMMENDATION Provide a larger No-Entry sign at this location and also an additional straight-ahead arrow marking on Pitsmoor Road, adjacent to the One-Way sign.

Derek Dooley Way: Bridghouses Roundabout to the Savile Street Link 3.14 PROBLEM

Location: Derek Dooley Way, westbound carriageway o the approach to the Savile Street Link.

Summary: Potential vehicle conflicts at the junction. There are occasions when drivers in the two straight ahead lanes of the westbound carriageway of Derek Dooley Way [on the approach to the Savile Street junction] have a red signal but can also have a view of the green signal that is then showing for drivers at the pedestrian crossing facility on Savile Street, east of the junction with Derek Dooley Way. As a result of the read-through problem, drivers may conflict with other drivers turning right into Savile Street

RECOMMENDATION

Re-align the signal head or alternatively fit louvers to the signal head at the pedestrian crossing facility on Savile Street, to address the read-through problem.




3.15 COMMENT

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout. Summary: Potential confusion for drivers as a result of the lack of guidance by road markings. The road markings [destination text markings and arrow markings] at this complex roundabout and on the approaches to the roundabout are very worn. This could cause some confusion for drivers who may already be confused with some aspects of the signing - as outlined in the General Comment at item 3.13.

RECOMMENDATION Replace the worn road markings where appropriate.

3.16 GENERAL COMMENT Location: All locations in this section of the project.

Summary: Potential confusion for drivers with the Wayfarer signing and other strategic signing, possibly leading to conflicts at complex junctions. This problem was reported in the Strategic Signing Review Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report included at Appendix J of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report for the Sheffield Inner Relief Road Northern Section 2, dated 24 April 2007.





3.17 CONCERN

Location: Bridgehouses Roundabout - northbound approach Summary: Risk of potential conflict situations for cyclists See also FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT - APPENDIX D After passing over Borough Bridge, there is a left turn only lane to Bridgehouses and Mowbray Street: the centre lane is ahead to Chatham Street and also right to continue on the Relief Road. Cyclists wishing to continue along the Relief Road at this junction are normally to the left of the centre lane and can find themselves being ‘cut-up’ by drivers accessing Chatham Street. Whilst an Advance Stop Line exists for cyclists at this point, cyclists could nevertheless be very vulnerable when carrying the movement as described. RECOMMENDATION The RSA Team cannot suggest a solution to address this concern except for the provision of suitable signing to alert drivers to the particular cycle movements. Comments from the Design Team would be welcomed with regard to this issue.




4.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD / SAVILE STREET JUNCTION TO SPITAL HILL, WICKER AND WICKER [INCLUDING ALL JUNCTIONS AND OTHER SIDE ROADS] - AS REFERRED TO AT STAGE 2 OF THE AUDIT

Subject to some street names being changed, following the completion of the new Northern Section of the Sheffield Inner Relief Road, this Section 4 of the project should now be referred to as: DEREK DOOLEY WAY: SAVILE STREET LINK TO THE WICKER INCLUDING THE DEREK DOOLEY/SAVILE STREET JUNCTION; SAVILE STREET FROM THE JUNCTION WITH DEREK DOOLEY WAY TO THE WICKER; THE WICKER TO SPITAL HILL [INCLUDING ALL JUNCTIONS AND SIDE ROADS OFF THE WICKER AND EXISTING TIE-IN POINTS] Derek Dooley Way, junction with Savile Street Link

4.1 PROBLEM

Location: Derek Dooley Way, junction with the Brunswick Road Cycle link.

Summary: Potential confusion for cyclists. The route for cyclists from Derek Dooley Way to the Brunswick Road Cycle Link is not clear. As a result, conflicts could occur if cyclists are unsure and take an alternative route to the one provided. RECOMMENDATION Provide clearer signing for cyclists.

4.2 PROBLEM

Location: Derek Dooley Way, junction with the Savile Street Link.

Summary: Risk of vehicle side-swipe conflicts. Drivers of large vehicles have been observed having difficulty turning right when other vehicles are alongside then at the gap in the central reservation due the limited space available. RECOMMENDATION The Auditor would welcome comments from the Design Team with regard to this issue - see also RSA comments at the Stage 2 Audit.




4.3 PROBLEM


Summary: Risk of conflicts between opposing traffic flows. Location: Savile Street junction with Spital Hill.

Summary: Risk of vehicle conflicts at the junction. During a recent site visit, some drivers travelling on the outbound section of Savile Street were observed driving through a red traffic signal at the junction and causing a near-conflict situation. One possible reason for this may be that there is some read-through to the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Savile Street to the east side of the Spital Hill junction. When a red signal for traffic is showing for outbound drivers at the junction, a green signal for traffic is showing at the pedestrian crossing facility.

RECOMMENDATION

Fit cowls or louvers to the signals for traffic at the pedestrian crossing facility to address this read-through problem.

4.3 PROBLEM


Summary: Risk of conflicts with opposing traffic flows and rear end shunts. Drivers turning right from the Savile Street Link have little guidance and may turn onto the wrong side of the dual carriageway, colliding with opposing traffic flows in the eastbound direction. Whilst road marking arrows exist on the eastbound carriageway of Derek Dooley Way close to the junction, this alone does not appear to be enough guidance for drivers as some drivers have been observed to hesitate and brake suddenly. These road marking arrows are also not very conspicuous in the dark. This could lead to rear end shunts. There is a missing internally illuminated bollard on the northeast corner of the central reservation at the east side of the junction. This may be the result of a vehicle collision, where there has been some confusion by drivers making the right turn.




RECOMMENDATION

Ideally, provide NO ENTRY signing at the north side of the carriageway at this junction. At the very least, provide additional road marking arrows in the central gap as guidance for drivers. Also, replace the missing internally illuminated bollard at the above location.

4.4 PROBLEM

Location: Derek Dooley Way - pedestrian crossing facility on the east side of the Savile Street Link.

Summary: Potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and also vehicle/vehicle

conflicts. There is potential for westbound drivers on Derek Dooley Way to make a “U”

turn onto the opposite side of the carriageway by driving over the tactile paving and wide area of footway in the central reservation at the above pedestrian facility. Some vehicle tyre marks observed on the footway are evidence that this has occurred.

RECOMMENDATION Provide reflectorised bollards at this location to prevent the described vehicle

movements occurring. 4.5 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street Link junction with Derek Dooley Way.

Summary: Risk of vehicle / pedestrian conflicts. Situations were observed where drivers turning left onto Derek Dooley Way have a green signal and then immediately after turning left are faced with a red signal at the pedestrian crossing facility situated on the east side of the junction. Most drivers observed did not appear to be fully aware of the pedestrian crossing facility that is close to the junction.




RECOMMENDATION

Whilst it appreciated that some adjustments were made to the signals by UTC at the time of the site visit but this situation nevertheless does remain a major concern for the future. Given that there may still be occasions in the future when the observed situation occurs, provide suitable signing on the Savile Street Link approach to the junction with Derek Dooley Way to raise the awareness of drivers to pedestrians using the crossing on Derek Dooley Way. This will go some way to safeguarding pedestrians using the Crossing.

4.6 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street Link junction with Derek Dooley Way - pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the east of the junction with the Savile Street Link.

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians crossing away from the designated crossing facilities. During visits to the site, many pedestrians were observed crossing between Johnson Street and Walker Street and using the central island as a refuge, away from the designated crossing facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

Provide a section of pedestrian guard rail in the central island to deter pedestrians crossing away from the facilities.

4.7 COMMENT

Location: Savile Street Link junction with Derek Dooley Way. Summary: Risk of vehicle/vehicle conflicts and vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts. Given the complexity of this signalised roundabout, there would be an increased risk of conflicts occurring in the event of the traffic signals failing to operate due to faults and also during the ensuing periods pending signal maintenance. It is understood that some serious injury accidents have already occurred at the Savile Street junction with Spital Hill and the Wicker when the traffic signals were not in operation due to faults or other problems. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the traffic signals are maintained suitably and in the event of any signal failure, the problems are rectified as quickly as possible.




Savile Street from the junction with Derek Dooley Way to Spital Hill and the Wicker, including tie-ins to existing

4.8 PROBLEM Location: Savile Street junction with Spital Hill - south west radius. Summary: Risk of cyclist conflicts.

The Advisory cycle lane does not completely extend around the radius at this location and cyclists do appear to be vulnerable without such protection from drivers of motorised vehicles turning left on to Spital Hill from Savile Street.

RECOMMENDATION

Extend the cycle lane further around the radius on to Savile Street, in accordance with the original layout shown on the drawing [[TM/BA682/1200/4B] that was supplied at Stage 2 of the Audit. In addition to the benefits that this would have for cyclists, the extended length of cycle lane could also keep left turning drivers further away from the high Trieff kerbing on this radius.

4.9 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street eastbound approach to the junction with Spital Hill.

Summary: Vehicle collisions occurring with the central island at the east side

of the junction. At the time of the site visits there was visible damage to the kerbs on the nose

of the central island to suggest that an eastbound driver had collided with the kerbs. A likely reason for this is that eastbound drivers are guided into the island due to the horizontal alignment of the central island on the west side of the junction.




RECOMMENDATION Ideally, the kerbing to the central islands at both sides of the junction should

be re-aligned. Given that there is a signalised pedestrian crossing facility at the west side of the junction, hatching alone would not be acceptable to guide drivers because pedestrians waiting to cross the road could stand on the hatching and then be vulnerable. Even with the recommended measures, the problem described may still occur for other reasons not identified. One particular observation is that the two lanes of the eastbound carriageway appear to be different widths. This may cause drivers to take up a wide position and collide with the nose of the island as outlined. Together with any re-kerbing work as recommended, the lane markings should also be adjusted and a suitable bollard should be provided on the nose of the island at the east side of the junction to further raise driver awareness and reduce the likelihood of collisions occurring with the island.

4.10 PROBLEM

Location: Spital Hill, city-bound approach to the Savile Street and Wicker junction. Summary: Risk of vehicle side-swipe conflicts.

At the time of the site visits, some drivers were observed switching lanes suddenly without any indication. Whilst the specific reason for this is not clear, there is nevertheless a concern that side-swipe conflicts could occur.

RECOMMENDATION The Auditor would welcome any comments from the Design Team regarding

this matter.

4.11 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street inbound [westbound direction from Attercliffe] approach to the Wicker.

Summary: Risk of overshoots. The Give Way sign at the junction is set very high above another sign and may therefore be overlooked by drivers approaching the junction. Overshoots could occur resulting in collisions with traffic approaching the junction from Spital Hill. This problem was also outlined at the Interim Stage 3 Audit [Report 2] dated 26 november 2007, a copy of which is included at Appendix B of this report.




RECOMMENDATION

Amend the height of the Give Way sign or the re-position the sign so that it is within the sightline of drivers approaching the junction.

4.12 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street inbound [westbound direction from Attercliffe] approach to the Wicker.

Summary: Risk of head-on vehicle conflicts. During a recent site visit a near-conflict situation was observed involving a driver travelling on the wrong side of the splitter island. Whilst there is a KEEP LEFT roundel on the longest splitter island on this approach this does appear to be small [albeit that the size may be in accordance with the current Traffic Signs Regulations] and the potential for such conflict situations has been recognised.

RECOMMENDATION

If possible, provide a larger [or more conspicuous] sign at this location and also include a direction arrow marking in each lane of the outbound carriageway [to mirror the arrow markings on the opposite side of the splitter island - in the inbound lanes], to avoid any confusion for drivers.

4.13 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street junction with Spital Hill.

Summary: Risk of vehicle conflicts at the junction. During a recent site visit, some drivers travelling on the outbound section of Savile Street were observed driving through a red traffic signal at the junction and causing a near-conflict situation. It is understood that some injury accidents have already been recorded by the Police as a result of such driver actions at this location. One possible reason for this may be that there is some read-through to the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Savile Street to the east side of the Spital Hill junction. When a red signal for traffic is showing for outbound drivers at the junction, a green signal for traffic is showing at the pedestrian crossing facility.

RECOMMENDATION

Fit cowls or louvers to the signals for traffic at the pedestrian crossing facility to address this read-through problem.




4.14 COMMENT

Location: Savile Street junction with Spital Hill and the Wicker. Summary: Risk of vehicle/vehicle conflicts and vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts. Given the complexity of this signalised roundabout, there would be an increased risk of conflicts occurring in the event of the traffic signals failing to operate due to faults and during the ensuing periods awaiting signal maintenance. It is understood that some serious injury accidents have already occurred at some signalised junctions of this Northern Section of the Inner Relief as a result of the traffic signals not being in operation due to faults. RECOMMENDATION Ensure that the traffic signals are maintained suitably and in the event of any signal failure, the problems are rectified quickly.

Wicker to Spital Hill - including all junctions, side roads and tie-ins to existing

4.15 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker, junction with Stanley Street. Summary: Risk of conflicts as a result of drivers abusing the Bus Gate. There is potential for conflicts occurring on the Wicker, between the junctions

of Stanley Street and Derek Dooley Way and also at the Derek Dooley Way junction and the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker resulting from Bus Gate abuse.

There is a major concern regarding the present level of abuse at the Wicker

Bus Gate and the potential for injury accidents as a result of drivers carrying out banned turning movements at the junction with Derek Doley Way. Whilst there is signing in place at the Stanley Street junction to advise outbound drivers of the Bus Gate ahead on the Wicker, the signs are regulatory and the “All-Traffic” text on the signing is relatively small and may not necessarily catch the attention of some drivers. The signs alone appear to have a limited effect on those drivers who intentionally abuse the Bus Gate and although there is some camera enforcement in operation this also appears to be having a limited effect from the results of a survey carried out.




RECOMMENDATION Provide some physical measures on the Wicker at the Stanley Street junction

to direct drivers along the all-traffic route of Stanley Street. This could include low-upstand kerbing to form a Bus Gate feature that would make drivers more aware of the traffic restrictions ahead and also guide them left into Stanley Street [but also permit the right turn into Willey Street].

Also, provide larger signing at this location to indicate the all-traffic route with

improved signing also along the length of Stanley Street to provide better guidance for drivers who may feel disorientated along this route. At the very least, road markings could be used but this would possibly have a reduced effect.

It should be noted that this option incorporating physical measures was

recommended at the Interim Stage 3 Audit but appears not to have been given due consideration by the Design Team, in view of the lack of a response.

In view of the risks that still exist for pedestrians at the signalised pedestrian

crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker, despite the regulatory signing and camera enforcement, the Design Team is urged to give consideration to this option in order to mitigate the risk of serious conflicts occurring either within the Bus Lane on the Wicker or on Derek Dooley Way as a result of banned turning movements by drivers from the Wicker.




4.16 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker at the junction with Derek Dooley Way, including the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker

Summary: Risk of various vehicle/vehicle conflicts occurring, associated with illegal turning movements, together with the risk of pedestrian conflicts at the crossing facility. As outlined at item 4.10, there is a major concern regarding the present level of Bus Gate abuse at the Wicker. Those drivers on the Wicker [beyond Stanley Street] who find themselves at the junction with Derek Dooley Way, having contravened the Bus Gate Order un- intentionally or intentionally, are likely to make a left or a right illegal turn onto the Inner Relief Road rather than to proceeding straight ahead along the remainder of the Bus Gate. Such movements are risky and both could result in serious conflicts with other vehicles or pedestrians. Drivers making the illegal left turn from the Wicker on a green traffic signal are then faced with a red traffic signal at the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker when pedestrians are using the crossing. The crossing facility is close to the junction with the Wicker and drivers making the illegal left turn have very little time to react to the red traffic signal at the crossing facility and stop to avoid pedestrians if necessary. Drivers [non-local and those making the movement in error] may also not be expecting a crossing facility on red so soon after turning left. Also, given that there are road markings to indicate Ahead-Only from the Wicker, pedestrians would be unsuspecting and would not expect drivers to be turning left and conflicting with them on the Crossing. As a result there is potential for serious conflict situations to occur. Elderly, infirm and visually impaired pedestrians and also parents or carers with prams and children would be particularly vulnerable in the situation outlined.

Additionally, should any vehicle/vehicle conflicts occur at this junction as a result of illegal left turning movements then there would be a risk of any pedestrians using the crossing facility being injured. This pedestrian route between the Wicker and Spital Hill is well used both during the day and also in the evening. The new residential developments in the area surrounding the Wicker already generate considerable pedestrian movements along the wicker throughout the day and night and the recently approved Tesco supermarket development on Savile Street, adjacent to Spital Hill, will inevitably further increase pedestrian movements between the Wicker and Spital Hill along the route that includes the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker. Unless problems associated with the banned left turns from the Wicker are addressed, the risks described will inevitably increase.




RECOMMENDATION

Investigate measures to mitigate the risks for pedestrians using the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker, associated mainly with the illegal right turning movements [intentional or unintentional] from the Wicker. Possible options could include: A] An all-red pedestrian phase at the traffic signal controlled junction, albeit that there are numerous drawbacks with this option. These include: increasing loss of traffic capacity therefore increasing delays elsewhere on the Inner Relief Road; increasing the risk of red light running; increasing the risk of pedestrians crossing on a red man signal. B] Re-positioning the pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way further away from the Wicker junction to increase the reaction time drivers encountering a red traffic signal at the crossing facility, after turning left from the Wicker. A drawback to this option would be that the re-positioned crossing facility would be away from the pedestrian desire line along the Wicker and would require pedestrian guard rail to redirect pedestrians to the crossing facility. There would then be a risk that some pedestrians would walk round the guardrail with their backs to traffic and be very vulnerable in the middle of the junction. C] Suitable signing at the junction to warn left turning drivers of the pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way. Such signing could also include an advisory message for drivers that all turns at the junction are banned [to supplement the road markings that exist on the Wicker prior to the junction with Derek Dooley Way].

4.17 PROBLEM

Location: Signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Derek Dooley Way to the west of the junction with the Wicker.

Summary: Potential hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. Large metal bollards have been positioned in the centre of the tactile paving at both sides of the crossing facility [to prevent drivers parking on the large areas of footway]. This is not an ideal arrangement as the bollards appear to create a hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. Whilst these measures may be part of the Wicker Enhancement Works, it is nevertheless considered appropriate to include this concern in this Stage 3 Audit Report, given that it may be some time before a Stage 3 Audit is requested for the wicker Enhancement scheme.




RECOMMENDATION Ideally, the bollards should be repositioned away from the edge of the footway. The Auditor would welcome comments from the Design Team with regard to this matter.

4.18 PROBLEM

Location: Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing at Walker Street near the junction with the Wicker.

Summary: Potential hazard for visually impaired pedestrians. Similar concern as outlined at item 4.11. RECOMMENDATION As item 4.11.

4.19 COMMENT

The Wicker Bus Lane is currently operational 24 hours of the day. If in the future the operational hours of the Bus Lane were reduced for any reason [to 12 hours perhaps], the problems described would inevitably become more acute unless suitable measures were put in place to mitigate the risks involved. Even with certain options recommended for further investigation there is likely to be an increased risk of injury accidents occurring involving vehicle/vehicle conflicts, vehicle/pedestrians conflicts and PSV passengers.

4.20 PROBLEM Location: Triangular splitter island, north of the Derek Dooley Way junction

with the Wicker.

Summary: Possibility of cyclists causing hazards for pedestrians using this island. There is a shared cycle/pedestrian section of footway on this splitter island but no signs or markings to indicate the shared use. There is a similar area of shared footway opposite this splitter island on the west side of the Wicker between Derek Dooley Way and Scholey Street] that also does not have suitable signing and markings.

RECOMMENDATION

Provide suitable signing and markings on the shared footway at these two locations.




4.21 PROBLEM Location: Commercial premises to the east of the Wicker [north of the Derek

Dooley Way junction] Summary: Trip hazard for elderly, disabled or visually impaired pedestrians.

There is a double step at the back of the footway leading to the above premises which is a trip hazard for pedestrians. Incidentally one of the units in this building is occupied by “The Forum For People With Disabilities”.

RECOMMENDATION

Remove the double step that is a trip hazard or provide a suitable ramped route to the building for disabled pedestrians that can also be easily navigated by the visually impaired. This problem was reported in the Strategic Signing Review Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report included at Appendix J of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report for the Sheffield Inner Relief Road Northern Section 2, dated 24 April 2007.


4.22 CONCERN

Location: Savile Street junction with the IRR. Summary: Risk of potential conflict situations for cyclists. See also FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT- APPENDIX D Approaching the IRR from Savile Street, just as the lights are changing to red, there is insufficient inter-green time for a cyclist to get to the cycle lane on the far side of the junction [i.e. westbound on the IRR], a distance of around 50m from the stop line on Savile Street. Whilst there is route across the junction, via the Crossings, most cyclists would be very reluctant to use this at all times.

RECOMMENDATION The RSA Team cannot identify a solution to address this concern and therefore would welcome comments from the Design Team.




4.23 CONCERN

Location: Savile Street eastbound Summary: Risk of potential conflict situations for cyclists. See also FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT- APPENDIX D The Relief Road works tie into Savile Street on a left hand bend, just as the cycle lane finishes. Many vehicles ‘cut the corner’ and cut-up any cyclists at this point. The 7.0 metre carriageway narrows down on the left hand bend, albeit that 2 lanes have been retained. RECOMENDATION It is understood that the proposed redevelopment of the adjacent site will provide a widening of the road to allow the continuation of the cycle lane. If and when this happens, this Issue should be largely resolved.




5.0 CASTLEGATE / EXCHANGE STREET / EXCHANGE PLACE, FURNIVAL ROAD, NURSERY STREET, BLONK STREET AND WICKER

Note: A separate Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has been carried out for this section of the project - see separate report at APPENDIX L of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report dated 24 April 2007.




6.0 BROAD LANE TO CORPORATION STREET GYRATORY

Note: A major part of this section was omitted due to the lack of total funding for the IRR scheme. The West Bar Green section was amended substantially and a separate Stage 2 Road Safety Audit was carried out for this section of the project, see separate report at APPENDIX H of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Report dated 24 April 2007.




S6.0 Audit Team Statement I certify that this Audit has been carried out in accordance with Sheffield City Council’s Internal Road Safety Audit Procedure.

AUDIT TEAM LEADER John Moseley I. Eng. FIHIE MIHT Signed………………………….. Principal Engineer

Transport and Highways - Dated…………………………… Road Safety Development Services D E L

Sheffield City Council Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH




SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2 APPENDIX TO FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT DRAFT REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS - ROAD SAFETY Safety Audit Ref: TE/16-083/BA682/FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2009

D Curtis BA, Dip.TP.MRTPI, FIHT Director Of Development Services Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH





LIST OF APPENDICES TO FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT

APPENDIX A Interim Stage 3 Audit Report 57

APPENDIX B Interim Stage 3 Audit Report: Pre-Opening 81

APPENDIX C Interim Stage 3 Audit Report: Prior to 115

Wicker Surfacing

APPENDIX D Major Cyclist Issues Reported by 125

The Cyclists` Forum




APPENDIX A

FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT REPORT

Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Substantial Completion

Document reference:

Report dated 20 June 2007




SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2 INTERIM ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 3 [SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION - PRE-OPENING] REPORT 1

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS - ROAD SAFETY Safety Audit Ref: TE/16-083/BA682 Date: 20 JUNE 2007






ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2

INTERIM STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION - PRE-OPENING] INCLUDING SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] 15.02.08 AND RSA TEAM RESPONSE [1]

S1.0 Introduction

S1.1 This report results from an Interim Stage 3 Road Safety Audit, carried out at

the request of Steve Cosgrove, Project Supervisor, Sheffield Inner Relief Road, by e-mail dated 22 May 2007. The Audit Team Membership for this Audit was: John Moseley Road Safety Engineer, Transport and Highways, (Audit Team Leader) Development Services, Sheffield City Council

A Specialist Advisor, appointed by the Audit Team for advice on matters relating to their particular areas of expertise were: PC Ian Shelton Road Safety Partnerships Officer South Yorkshire Police

S1.2 The Audit was undertaken in accordance with the Sheffield City Council Road

Safety Audit Standard 2005 and comprised an examination of the completed scheme.

S1.3 The Auditor has examined and reported on the road safety implications for

the scheme as presented and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria.

S1.4 All comments and recommendations are referenced to the Scheme Drawings supplied at Stage 2 of the Audit, as listed at APPENDIX A and APPENDIX G of the Final Stage 2 Audit dated 24 April 2007.

S1.5 The Auditor and the Road Safety Partnerships Officer from South Yorkshire

Police visited the site on 31 May 2007 during daylight hours. The weather was fine and the road surface was dry. At the time of the site visit, not all the signing was complete and one lane on part of the Shalesmoor section - between Hoyle Street and the Corporation Street Gyratory was coned off.

S1.6 The Interim Stage 3 Audit was completed on 20 June 2007.




S1.7 The nomenclature for this report is as the Stage 2 Audit report. S2.0 Scheme Description S2.1 For a full description of the scheme, reference should be made to Section 2

and Appendix A of the Final Stage 2 Audit. S3.0 Items From The Previous Stage 2 Audit S3.1 The Final Stage 2 Audit was completed on 24 April 2007 on the

understanding that there were no unresolved issues at Stage 2 of the Audit and that any reports in respect of redesigned parts of the scheme that needed to be subjected to a Re-Audit could then be appended to the Stage 3 Audit Report. This was seen by Highways and the Road Safety Audit Team to be the most appropriate way forward, given that the possibility of some re-design work being needed on certain sections of the scheme could not be ruled out.

S4.0 Notes For The Design Team - Unresolved Issues

S4.1 In accordance with the Arbitration Procedure [outlined in the Sheffield City

Council Road Safety Audit Standard 2005], after the Design Team has given due consideration to the problems raised by the Audit Team [and meetings have taken place between the Design Team and the Audit Team] any changes made to the design shall be submitted to the Audit Team for that part of the scheme to be re-audited.


to be outside the terms of reference of the project or deemed not appropriate by the Design Team, should be included in an Exception Report. The Exception Report should be prepared by the Design Team, on behalf of the Project Sponsor, giving the reasons for rejection together with any alternative solutions and sent to the Arbiter with a copy to the Audit Team.

S4.3 The Arbiter is to be the Head of Transport and Highways or his nominees.




S5.0 Items Forming This Interim Stage 3 Audit 1.0 PENISTONE ROAD / HOYLE STREET / SHALESMOOR / MOORFIELDS Penistone Road / Hoyle Street / Shalesmoor Gyratory

1. 1 PROBLEM

Location: Penistone Road - inbound approach to the gyratory, approximately 10 metres prior to the signalised pedestrian crossing facility on the west side of Roscoe Road. Summary: Risk of shunt type conflicts. A left turn arrow marking exists at this location at a point where there are dropped kerbs [presumably for a signal maintenance vehicle]. There is a risk that some drivers could be confused and think that the marking indicates a left turn into an access. Any hesitation on the part of drivers may result in shunt type conflicts occurring.

RECOMMENDATION Remove the arrow marking from this location. If the purpose of this arrow marking is seen to absolutely necessary in advance of the lane split, then the arrow marking could be re-instated in a new position immediately after the Crossing where it would be more meaningful to drivers and give them more guidance into the separate left turn that starts a short distance ahead. Alternatively, the arrow marking in the position shown could be deleted altogether. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] This layout is not part of IRR, it was installed in 1994 as part of Penistone 3 works. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.




1.2 PROBLEM

Location: Penistone Road - inbound approach to the gyratory, approximately 5 metres prior to the signalised pedestrian crossing facility.

Summary: Risk of skidding, resulting in conflicts with pedestrians on the Crossing. There is a shiny patch on the road surface at this location, possibly bituminous-based, that could cause drivers to skid when braking on the approach to the Crossing. This problem would obviously be more acute when the road surface is wet.

RECOMMENDATION Remove the hazardous material from the road surface. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Patch no longer in evidence. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

1.3 PROBLEM

Location: Penistone Road - inbound approach to the gyratory, immediately prior to the left slip-off. Summary: Drivers [and cyclists] at this location are vulnerable because of the steep embankment on the nearside. There is a possible risk of drivers from Infirmary Road “side-swiping” other drivers in the nearside [left-turn] lane and forcing them down a steep embankment, resulting in serious injuries. This concern was raised at item 1.32 of the Stage 2 Audit report and the Design Team Feedback of 24.10.05 stated that the proposed level difference would be lowered and there would be a less steeper gradient, i.e. 1:3 locally, therefore a guard rail [or safety barrier] would not be required. Whilst this was accepted at Stage 2 of the Audit on the understanding that there would be no Departures from Standards, following a re-examination of the location at this [Interim Stage 3] Audit, the omission of a guard rail [or safety barrier] at this location is questionable and there a concern about safety for drivers at this unprotected gradient.




RECOMMENDATION It is requested that this location be re-examined by the Design Team with a view to providing measures at the top of the embankment to offer some protection for drivers [and cyclists]. SITE TEAM RESPONSE This layout has existed since 1994 when constructed under Penistone 3. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted but will review at Stage 3 of the Audit when the scheme is fully operational.

1.4 PROBLEM

Location: Penistone Road - inbound approach to the gyratory at the left turn onto Shalesmoor, a short distance to the west of Cornish Street. Summary: Possible confusion for cyclists. A temporary CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign exists at this location. There does not appear to be any reason for the sign at this time and so some cyclists may be confused. Any hesitation on the part of cyclists may result in conflicts occurring. RECOMMENDATION

Remove the sign. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Sign removed. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

1.5 PROBLEM

Location: Cornish Street, junction with the gyratory. Summary: Lack of a Keep-Left bollard on the triangular splitter island at the junction. The island, and any pedestrians crossing at this point, would be vulnerable to being hit by drivers, because of the lack of a Keep Left bollard at this location. There is evidence on site to suggest that a bollard has previously installed at this location and has been hit by a vehicle.




RECOMMENDATION Replace the missing bollard. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Agreed, bollard to be replaced. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

1.6 PROBLEM

Location: Cornish Street, approach to the gyratory. Summary: Risk of conflicts at the entry to the gyratory. At the time of the site visit, some drivers from Cornish Street were observed taking a direct route onto the gyratory, rather than turning left as prescribed by the signing and road markings [albeit that there is presently no sign at the nearside adjacent to the development site. It is likely that such tight turning movements are being carried out by drivers of large or long vehicles, indicated by tyre marks on the road surface. There are obvious risks for other drivers when such movements are being carried out and conflicts could occur. It is envisaged that most drivers carrying out this movement do so deliberately as an alternative to the long detour via the Corporation Street Gyratory.

RECOMMENDATION None. The RSA Team welcomes any comments the Design Team may have. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Layout constructed as drawing and all signing installed as design. Believe that drivers make this manoeuvre in the full knowledge that it is illegal. Will refer to Design Team. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Await response from the Design Team. Subject to this not being resolved at this stage, the issue will be raised again at the Full Stage 3 Audit.




1.7 PROBLEM

Location: Cornish Street, approach to the gyratory. Summary: Risk of conflicts at the entry to the gyratory.

There is anecdotal evidence from the Police to suggest that some drivers from Cornish Street also take a direct route onto the gyratory by travelling on the wrong side of the splitter island rather than turning left as prescribed by the signing and road markings, possibly for the some reasons as outlined at item 1.6. This route now appears to be possible because the as-built shape of the eastern nose of the island on Penistone Road to the northwest of the gyratory [separating the straight-ahead lanes from the left turn lanes] is not as long as that originally proposed and shown on the detailed design drawings. Also, the lack of a direction arrow marking on the entry side of Cornish Street encourages this.

RECOMMENDATION Re-shape the nose of the island on Penistone Road to the northwest of the gyratory [separating the straight-ahead lanes from the left turn lanes] to physically prevent this movement occurring. A drawback with this is that when drivers have committed themselves to this movement and realise that they cannot complete the desired movement, they may then find an escape route to be very difficult or totally impossible to carry out [in the case of drivers of large or long vehicles]. An advisory sign to warn drivers of the possible situation would therefore be advisable with this option. In addition, provide a direction arrow marking at the entry side of Cornish Street, to make any drivers intending to travel on the wrong side of the splitter island aware of opposing traffic [from the gyratory]. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Same conflict as in 1.6 requires Design Team input. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Await response from the Design Team. Subject to this not being resolved at this stage, the issue will be raised again at the Full Stage 3 Audit.




1.8 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesmoor - Lack of cycle symbol markings in the advisory cycle lane, at each side of the Toucan Crossing near Dun Street. Summary: Pedestrians vulnerable. RECOMMENDATION Provide cycle symbol markings in the advisory cycle lane, at each side of the Toucan Crossing SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Cycle symbols placed as shown on construction drawings. Will refer to design team. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Await response from the Design Team. Subject to this not being resolved at this stage, the issue will be raised again at the Full stage 3 audit.

1.9 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesmoor - pedestrian/cycle route across the large triangular island to the east side of the gyratory. Summary: Pedestrians using the pedestrian route are vulnerable because of the lack of cycle symbol markings in the adjacent cycle route that is not segregated by markings. Elderly or infirm pedestrians may not be aware of the cycle route running close to the pedestrian route between the Crossings at this location. As a result conflicts could occur.

RECOMMENDATION Provide cycle symbol markings in the cycle route to make pedestrians using the adjacent pedestrian route more aware of cycle activity, particularly near the Crossings. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Ped/cycle separation achieved by blue band of block paving. Cycle symbols placed at all cycle on and off ramps to the island.




RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted, but will review at the Full Stage 3 Audit.

1.10 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesmoor - signalised crossing to the east of the gyratory. Summary: At the time of the site visit, the primary signal on the inbound carriageway was not in operation.

RECOMMENDATION Investigate and rectify accordingly. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Since repaired. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

1.11 PROBLEM

Location: Shalesnmoor, near Dun Fields.

Summary: Pedestrians using the footway on the north side [adjacent to the inbound carriageway] are vulnerable. Dun Fields is closed up to traffic at the junction with Shalesmoor by bollards across the back of the footway. At each side of the bollards there is an open space where the closure of Dun Fields could be by-passed by drivers travelling to or from Shalesmoor. If such movements occurred, then pedestrians using the footway at this location would be vulnerable.

RECOMMENDATION Provide further bollards or a knee-high fence at these locations to safeguard pedestrians using the footway at this location. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Unfortunately the open frontage of the adjacent forecourt means that traffic could always traverse the footway to gain access to Shalesmoor at this location, therefore additional bollards/knee rails would be ineffectual.




RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Not accepted. Will review at the Full Stage 3 Audit. Shalesmoor / Moorfields

1.12 PROBLEM

Location: Moorfields - Shepherd Street and Ebenezer Street junctions. Summary: Pedestrians using tactile crossings at these side road junctions are vulnerable. The tactile crossings at these locations have a channel block at the front of the dropped kerbs. This unusual arrangement is hazardous, as pedestrians would be tempted to step into the road onto the channel block [thinking it was the edge of the crossing because the channel block is the same colour as the dropped kerbs] and could be hit by a vehicle turning into the junction. This problem would be more acute when a pedestrian is standing at a crossing and a vehicle is approaching from behind them to turn left into the junction.

RECOMMENDATION Remove the channel block in front of the tactile crossing and reinstate with bituminous material to restore the colour differential at the crossing.

1.13 NOTE TO THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR

Location: Various. Summary: Pedestrians using tactile crossings at these side road junctions are vulnerable. The situation outlined at item 1.12 presently exists at numerous other locations. These locations will be referred to individually in this report but with the problem and recommendation referenced to item 1.12.




SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] It is understood that this is a longstanding issue and is caused by the conflicting requirements of your view herein and the need to satisfy the DDA and KPI requirements of a minimal ‘lip’ at the footway/carriageway interface of crossing points. The use of channel blocks is the only way of ensuring the required minimal upstand is achieved, due to the accuracy limitations of laying surfacing (+or-6mm). Ironically, we removed a number of proposed channels runs on site at such locations where it was considered adequate longfall could be achieved and we could be sure that ponding was not likely to occur. Until this matter is resolved we are not a position to amend the detail as you wish.

RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] We are awaiting results of Arbitration on this issue in connection with another scheme. The Arbiters decision on this issue will set a precedent for this and other schemes.

1.14 PROBLEM

Location: Moorfields - Toucan Crossing at Bowling Green Street, tactile crossings at the north and south side. Summary: As item 1.12

RECOMMENDATION As item 1.12 SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] As item 1.12 RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] See item 1.12.




1.15 PROBLEM

Location: Moorfields - Toucan Crossing at Bowling Green Street. Summary: Missing tactile button on the push-button unit - south side of the central reservation.

RECOMMENDATION Provided tactile button. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Agreed. Tactile button provided. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

1.16 PROBLEM

Location: Moorfields - Toucan Crossing at Bowling Green Street.

Summary: There are silt deposits at this Crossing, could be evidence that water may not be draining away at the crossing point. Pedestrians would be vulnerable in this situation, as they could slip and fall into the road. RECOMMENDATION Carry out remedial action to improve drainage at this location. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Agreed, design has 1/1000 fall and is silting at this location. Investigation into solution required. Need to liaise with design team. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Await response from the Design Team. Subject to this not being resolved at this stage, the issue will be raised again at the Full Stage 3 Audit.




1.17 PROBLEM

Location: Moorfields - Toucan Crossing at Bowling Green Street.

Summary: Cyclists approaching the Crossing in the advisory cycle lane would be vulnerable, because the zig-zag markings in the cycle lane have been laid on top of the red coloured surfacing, against the Arbiter`s decision. As outlined at item 1.24 of the Stage 2 Audit report, if these markings were laid on top of the red surfacing, cyclists could either lose control because of the unevenness or skid on the lines in wet conditions. This issue was referred to Arbitration and the Arbiter decided that whilst the zig-zag markings had to be kept next to the kerbline, rather than outside the advisory cycle lane, in practice the zig-zag markings should be laid first and then the red surfacing should be laid flush with the markings so that there would be no hazards for cyclists using the advisory cycle lane.

RECOMMENDATION Carry out remedial action, in accordance with the Arbiter`s decision at item 1.24 of the Stage 2 Audit report. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Not aware of arbiter’s response and no instruction given by design in this regard. Should be noted though that there would still be a disparity of levels since the two materials are differing thickness. Your proposal would lead to ponding water in the zig zags. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Not accepted fully at this stage. This issue will be raised again at the Full Stage3 Audit, when comments from the Cycle Forum should be known. It is understood that their members will be examining the completed cycle facilities throughout the project, in due course.




2.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD: GIBRALTAR STREET TO CORPORATION STREET

Bowling Green Street to Corporation Street

2.1 PROBLEM

Location: Inner Relief Road - central reservation opposite Copper Street. Summary: Potential hazard for drivers or motorcyclists. Trees are planted in the central reservation at this location and the canopies of the trees overhang the carriageway, creating a potential hazard for the above groups of road users.

RECOMMENDATION From a road safety point of view, trees in a relatively narrow central reservation are not desirable. Given that the Auditor accepts that there would be some resistance to the trees being removed altogether or different species that do not have wide canopies being planted, at the very least the tree canopies should be cut back now. Also, arrangements should be made for the tree canopies to be cut back on a regular basis to avoid the above hazards re-occurring. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] This particular species of tree has been specially chosen by the City’s landscape architects. The trees chosen have a narrow canopy, columnar growth and 3m ‘clear stem’. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] The situation will be re-examined at the Full Stage 3 Audit and monitored thereafter.

2.2 PROBLEM

Location: Russell Street junction with the Inner Relief Road - signalised pedestrian crossings on Russell Street, east and west side of the junction.

Summary: As item 1.12

RECOMMENDATION As item 1.12




SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] As item 1,12 RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] See item 1.12.

2.3 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street junction with the Inner Relief Road - signalised pedestrian crossing on Gibraltar Street, west side. Summary: Potential trip hazard for pedestrians. The height of the dropped kerbs at the crossing point appears to be higher than permitted, resulting in a potential trip hazard.

RECOMMENDATION Re-lay the kerbs to within the required tolerance or alternatively provide a fillett of bituminous material adjacent to the kerbs to regulate the kerb heights.

SITE TEAM RESONSE [1] Agreed. Kerbs to be lowered and adjacent paving to be adjusted to suit. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted. This will be re-examined at the Full Stage 3 Audit.

2.4 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street junction with the Inner Relief Road - cycle lane crossing at the west side of the junction. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving footway users. Drivers with local knowledge may be tempted to drive over the dropped kerbs intended for pedestrians and cyclists to access Copper Street and trinity Street [stopped up] and this would endanger footway users. See item 2.3 of the RSA Stage 2 report.




RECOMMENDATION Provide bollards at this location as agreed at Stage 2 of the Audit. The design Team feedback of 24.10.05 stated that 4 no. bollards had been included in the latest construction drawings. Also, provide suitable signs and cycle symbol markings at the cycle lane / footway on the west side of the junction, where there would be pedestrian activity near the signalised pedestrian crossing facility. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Agreed. Bollards installed. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.

2.5 PROBLEM

Location: Inner Relief Road - north footway, at the junction with Bower Street. Summary: Potential hazard for footway users. A street lighting column is sited in the middle of the footway at this location and is a potential hazard for disabled and visually impaired footway users. RECOMMENDATION It would be desirable for the street lighting column to be re-sited to the rear of the footway at this location, to eliminate any hazards for the above groups of footway users. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Sufficient footway width exists ie >1.2m in a 4m footway. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted on this occasion only, albeit that this is not totally ideal.

2.6 PROBLEM

Location: Inner Relief Road - south footway, at the junction with Bower Springs. Summary: Potential hazard for footway users. A large J C Decaux sign is sited in the middle of the footway at this location and is a potential hazard for disabled and visually impaired footway users.




RECOMMENDATION It would be desirable for the sign to be re-sited in a less hazardous position at this location, to eliminate any hazards for the above group of footway users. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Position as agreed between Highway Design Section and Planning. Also see item 2.5 RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted on this occasion only, albeit that this is not totally ideal.

2.7 PROBLEM

Location: Inner Relief Road - south footway, at the west side of the Corporation Street Gyratory.

Summary: Potential hazard for footway users.

A street lighting column is sited in the middle of the footway at this location and is a potential hazard for disabled and visually impaired footway users.

RECOMMENDATION It would be desirable for the street lighting column to be re-sited to the rear of the footway at this location, to eliminate any hazards for the above groups of footway users. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] See item 2.5 RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted on this occasion only, albeit that this is not totally ideal.

2.8 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street - signalised pedestrian crossings, east side of the gyratory.

Summary: As item 1.12

RECOMMENDATION As item 1.12




SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] As item 1.12 RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] See item 1.12.




3.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD: CORPORATION STREET GYRATORY TO NURSERY STREET

Corporation Street

3.1 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street northbound approach to the gyratory, footway on the west side in the vicinity of the signalised pedestrian crossing facility to the south of the Alma Street junction [cycle link to Alma Street]. Summary: Risk of pedestrian/cyclist conflicts. The shared footway solution at this location - see item 3.4 of the Stage 2 Audit report, has no shared cycleway signing as agreed in the Design Team Response.

RECOMMENDATION Provide the necessary signing, as agreed. SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] Sign erected on lighting column approximately 5m south of shared surface. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted

3.2 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street southbound away from the gyratory, footway on the east side to the south of Bridge Street.

Summary: Potential hazard for footway users. A sign mounted on three poles is sited in the middle of the footway at this location and is a potential hazard for disabled and visually impaired footway users.

RECOMMENDATION It would be desirable for the sign to be re-sited to the rear of the footway at this location [or mounted on two posts only], to eliminate any hazards for the above groups of footway users.




SITE TEAM RESPONSE [1] All signs mounted on two poles only. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] To be examined at the full stage 3 audit.




6.0 Audit Team Statement I certify that this Audit has been carried out in accordance with the Sheffield City Council Road Safety Audit Standard 2005. AUDIT TEAM LEADER FOR THIS AUDIT John Moseley, I. Eng. FIHIE Signed…………………………..

Engineer Road Safety Team

Transport and Highways Division Dated…………………………… Development Services,

D E L, Sheffield City Council,

Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS




Appendix A

Audit Brief, drawings and documents

See Audit Brief at Appendix A of the Stage 2 Audit report. List of Drawings supplied at Stage 2 of the Audit:

• See Appendix A of the Stage 2 Audit report for list of drawings supplied. AND

• Sign Schedules applicable to the scheme

.




APPENDIX B


Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Pre-Opening

Document reference:

Report dated 26 November 2007




SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2 INTERIM ROAD SAFETY AUDIT STAGE 3 [SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION AND PRE-OPENING] REPORT 2

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS - ROAD SAFETY Safety Audit Ref: TE/16-083/BA682 Date: 26 NOVEMBER 2007







SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION - STAGE 2

INTERIM STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION] REPORT 2 DESIGN TEAM RESONSE [1] - NO FORMAL DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE RSA TEAM AT THIS INTERIM STAGE 3 AUDIT RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] - SUBJECT TO THESE ISSUES STILL REMAINING WHEN THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FULLY COMPLETED, FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE MADE AT THE FULL STAGE 3 AUDIT

S1.0 Introduction

S1.1 This report results from an Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Road Safety Audit,

carried out at the request of Steve Cosgrove, Project Supervisor, Sheffield Inner Relief Road, by e-mail dated 16 November 2007.

The Audit Team Membership for this Audit was: John Moseley [Audit Team Leader for this audit] Senior Road Safety Engineer, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council

Specialist Advisors, appointed by the Audit Team for advice on matters

relating to their particular areas of expertise were: PC Ian Shelton Road Safety Partnerships Officer South Yorkshire Police Richard Skelton Transport Planning Officer [Cycling Issues] Transport and Highways Development Service Sheffield City Council Dan Maurice [Motor Cycling Issues] Road Safety Officer Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council




Andy Bennett [Traffic Signal Issues] Principal Engineer, Urban Traffic Control Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council

Brian Messider [Disability Access Issues] Access Officer Development Services, Sheffield City Council

S1.2 It was understood that the full scheme was substantially complete and

subsequently would be opened to traffic on Sunday 18 November 2007. The request for an Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Road Safety Audit on sections not already subjected to the Interim Stage 3 Audit in June 2007, was received at 16.43 hours on 16 November 2007 and was therefore too late for any action to be taken by the Road Safety Audit Team prior to the planned opening date. It was not requested that the sections already subjected to the Interim [Pre-opening] Stage 3 Audit in June 2007 should be re-Audited.

S1.3 For a scheme of this size, it would be normal practice for individual sections

of the scheme to be subjected to an Interim Stage 3 Audit when nearing completion, rather than large areas of the scheme being Audited together. Unfortunately this procedure was not adopted. This would have overcome the difficult situation that is now being faced with the scheme being fully opened to traffic without a Pre-opening Stage 3 Audit and many problems for road users being identified at this late stage. Such a procedure would also have assisted the Project Supervisor in making a prompt response to the RSA Team, in respect of any safety concerns identified.

S1.4 An Interim Stage 3 Audit was nevertheless carried out on the remainder of the

scheme not already Audited, during the week commencing 19 November 2007, after the planned opening date. This was on the understanding that a full Stage 3 Road Safety Audit would then be requested and carried out early in 2008 when all work on the scheme had been completed.

S1.5 The Audit was undertaken in accordance with the Sheffield City Council Road

Safety Audit Standard 2005 and comprised an examination of the three sections of the scheme that were substantially completed and open to traffic, that had not already been subjected to an earlier Interim [Pre-opening] Stage 3 Road Safety Audit.

S1.6 The Auditor has examined and reported on the road safety implications for

the scheme as presented and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria.




S1.7 All comments and recommendations are referenced to the Scheme Drawings supplied at Stage 2 of the Audit, as listed at APPENDIX A and APPENDIX G of the Final Stage 2 Road Safety Audit dated 24 April 2007.

S1.8 The nomenclature of this report is the same as the Final Stage 2 Audit report. S1.9 The RSA Team Leader and the Road Safety Partnerships Officer from South

Yorkshire Police visited Sections 2 and 3 of the scheme [see the relevant locations in Section 5 of this report] on 20 November 2007 during daylight hours. The weather was dull and cloudy and the road surface was wet.

S1.10 A further visit to the site was made to examine Section 4 of the scheme [see

the relevant locations in section 5 of this report] by the RSA Team Leader and the Road Safety Partnerships Officer on 21 November 2007 during daylight hours. The weather was fine and the road surface was dry.

S1.11 During both site visits, traffic was busy with certain locations being severely

congested because of possible problems with the traffic signals. As a result, some traffic lanes and exit routes were being obstructed at junctions during certain signal stages and numerous near conflict situations involving motor vehicle users were observed. It is understood that the traffic signals on these two sections of the scheme had not been properly commissioned prior to the date of opening and this may explain some of the problems that were observed at the times of the site visits.

S1.12 Conditions for pedestrians throughout both sections of the scheme visited

were generally hazardous, mainly due to temporary footway surfacing, site materials deposited in the footways and unfinished work around service box covers. There appeared to be little evidence of signing to guide pedestrians along some temporary pedestrian routes and across busy and complicated junctions where normal routes had been obstructed or closed up. Footways at many locations were obstructed by temporary fencing and as a resul, some dangerous situations were observed involving pedestrians crossing away from designated crossing facilities at busy junctions or walking in the carriageway either alongside traffic or with their backs to traffic. Some of the footway users observed walking in the carriageway, included mothers with small children and prams.

S1.13 There is therefore a serious concern that in such situations observed, other

groups of footway users such as the elderly, people with disabilities and mobility problems and the visually impaired would be particularly vulnerable.

S1.14 Cyclists using the new cycle facilities generally appeared to be vulnerable

because of the severed cycle/pedestrian routes and some cycle routes that were not particularly obvious.

S1.15 Specific concerns regarding the above issues are referred to later in this

report.




S1.16 It should be noted that this report is not exhaustive, given that the Auditor and the Road Safety Partnerships Officer found it extremely difficult to carry out the Interim Stage 3 Audit on the substantially completed sections of the scheme because of limited acc

S1.17 Given that an Interim [Pre-opening] Stage 3 Audit could not be carried out

because of the short notice given to the Road Safety Audit Team, it is hoped that this Interim Stage 3 Audit will nevertheless at the very least help to mitigate the many hazardous and dangerous situations that were identified involving all road users at the time of visiting the site in connection with the Audit.

S1.18 Notwithstanding the above and also given the observations at the time of the

site visits, it is the view of both the Auditor and the Police Road Safety Partnerships Officer that the safety of all road users has been seriously compromised by the opening of the scheme to traffic without an Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Road Safety Audit being carried out and any concerns identified as part of the Audit being addressed [see item S1.2 of this report].

S1.19 This Interim Stage 3 Audit - Report 2 was completed on 26 November 2007. S2.0 Scheme Description S2.1 For a full description of the scheme, reference should be made to the Audit

Brief in Appendix A of the Final Stage 2 Audit dated 24 April 2007..




S3.0 Items From The Previous Stage 2 Audit and the previous Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Audit

S3.1 The Final Stage 2 Audit was completed on 24 April 2007 on the

understanding that there were no unresolved issues at Stage 2 of the Audit and that any reports in respect of redesigned parts of the scheme that needed to be subjected to a Re-Audit could then be appended to the Stage 3 Audit Report. This was seen by Highways and the Road Safety Audit Team to be the most appropriate way forward, given that the possibility of some re-design work being needed on certain sections of the scheme could not be ruled out.

S3.2 The first Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Audit - Report 1, was completed on 20

June 2007. The sections of the scheme substantially complete and subjected to a Pre-opening Audit at that time included:

• Section 1 - Penistone Road/Hoyle Street/Shalesmoor

• Section 1 - Shalesmoor/Moorfields

• Section 2 - IRR between Bowling Green Street and Corporation Street Gyratory [excluding Gibraltar Street]

• Section 3 - IRR between Corporation Street Gyratory to Nursery Street - part only.

S3.3 A Design Team Response to the first [Pre-opening] Interim Stage 3 Audit

dated June 2007 has not yet been received, up to the issue date of this report.

S4.0 Notes For The Design Team - Unresolved Issues

S4.1 In accordance with the Arbitration Procedure [outlined in the Sheffield City




S4.3 The Arbiter is to be the Head of Transport and Highways or his nominees.




S5.0 Items Forming This Interim Stage 3 Audit. 2.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD: BOWLING GREEN STREET TO CORPORATION

STREET

Gibraltar Street

2. 1 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street - footway build-out at the signalised crossing facility near the junction with Steelhouse Lane. Summary: Risk of drivers colliding with the build-out. There is no bollard on the footway build-out. Whilst a signal pole exists on the build-out, the pole is painted black and positioned away from the leading edge of the build-out and is not relectorised. The signal pole would therefore not provide a suitable warning for drivers. Any vehicle collisions at this point would compromise the safety of any pedestrians walking to aor from the Crossing.

RECOMMENDATION Provide a suitable bollard with a reflector at the leading edge of the footway build-out.

2.2 PROBLEM

Location: Gibraltar Street - footway build-out at the signalised crossing facility near the junction with Steelhouse Lane.

Summary: Potential hazards for pedestrians at the crossing. There are presently sections of temporary fencing at the above location that restrict access to the Crossing and are therefore hazardous. The uneven paving near the dropped kerbs at the Crossing would create further hazards for footway users, particularly the elderly, people with mobility difficulties and the visually impaired. RECOMMENDATION Remove the hazards in the vicinity of the Crossing.




Corporation Street, between West Bar and the Corporation Street Gyratory - at the junction with the IRR.

2.3 PROBLEM

Location: Spring Street, junction with Corporation Street. Summary: Lack of regulatory signing or road markings at the junction. There is a risk of drivers exiting the Spring Street junction and turning right on the wrong side of the splitter island against opposing traffic flows because of the lack of regulatory signing or road markings at this junction. In such a situation, drivers would not realise their mistake until either colliding with an opposing vehicle or until reaching the next junction at Water Street, where NO ENTRY markings have been provided on the main carriageway at one side of the junction to warn drivers turning out from the junction. The problem outlined would be more acute during darkness. It would be understandable if some drivers are confused initially, as Corporation Street is now two-way and drivers were permitted to turn right before the alterations.

RECOMMENDATION Provide regulatory signing and road markings at the junction to address this problem. This would also be consistent with the Water Street junction and the car park exit on this side of the road, between the Spring Street junction and West Bar, where regulatory signing/markings have been provided. Alternatively, provide arrow markings at each side of the central hatching on the main carriageway near the junction to warn drivers of the new traffic direction as a temporary measure. This situation could then be reviewed at a later date when the scheme is totally complete and operational and the arrow markings removed if the problem does not appear to be so acute.




Corporation Street Gyratory - at the junction with the IRR 2.4 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street Gyratory - northbound exit from the gyratory onto the IRR. Summary: Risk of side-swipe conflicts. Northbound drivers approaching the gyratory in the two lanes marked by straight-ahead arrow markings, then exit the gyratory after setting off together from the signal stop line onto the IRR, side by side, in the two lanes through the central reservation of the IRR. To complete this movement, drivers are effectively turning right onto the IRR. At this point [straight-ahead drivers] are very close together because of the acute right turn that is apparent at this location. Numerous near side-swipe conflicts were observed during recent visits to this location. Because there is a section of advisory cycle lane at the west side of the gap, adjacent to the end of the central reservation, cyclists would obviously be vulnerable when carrying out the same movements as those outlined for drivers joining the IRR. All these problems would obviously be more acute when large vehicles were involved in these movements. RECOMMENDATION Widen the gap in the central reservation to provide more clearance and space for turning movements at this junction. The RSA Team would welcome any comments that the Design Team or Project Supervisor may have regarding this matter.




2.5 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street Gyratory - signalised pedestrian crossings at the junction. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians as a result of pedestrians crossing away from the designated crossing facilities. At the times when the site was visited, in addition to those times and dates listed at S1.9 and S1.10 of this report, large numbers of pedestrians were observed crossing the IRR at the east side of the gyratory in a diagonal line to and from the central island away from the Crossing. Similarly, large numbers of pedestrians were also observed crossing 5 lanes of traffic on the IRR at the long central splitter island that separates the 5 lanes of traffic on the IRR. The reason for pedestrians making these crossing movements is that the signalised crossing facilities are some distance apart, with no facilities for pedestrians on the IRR at the east side of the gyratory. This is not a safe situation, as traffic speeds on the IRR at this location are relatively fast. It should be noted that sections of pedestrian guardrail at the Crossing, to the east of the gyratory were removed fromthe proposals as part of a cost-cutting exercise late in the detailed design stage. With regard to this, reference should be made to the IRR Stage 2 Road Safety Audit report - Appendix O [location 5]. It should be noted also that the Auditor was contacted about this cost-cutting exercise but opposed the proposals, as this would compromise pedestrian safety. Had these proposals been retained, they would have at least discouraged pedestrians from crossing away from the designated facilities at the east side of the gyratory as now described. RECOMMENDATION Pedestrian guardrail at the above location should therefore be provided, as originally proposed. Also, provide a suitable length of guardrail in the central splitter island of the IRR at this location [between the 2-lane and 3-lane carriageways] to discourage the pedestrian movements as described. It is elementary that recent residential and commercial developments in the area have significantly increased pedestrian movements at this location since the original design of the IRR scheme. Given the higher traffic speeds at this location [and the lack of traffic calming] this location would be well within the criteria now adopted by the City Council for providing pedestrian guardrail - mainly at city centre sites.




3.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD: CORPORATION STREET GYRATORY TO THE NURSERY STREET AND BRIDGEHOUSES JUNCTION

Inner Relief Road [Corporation Street] junction with Alma Street and Bridge Street

3.1 PROBLEM

Location: Cycle route between Alma Street and Bridge Street. Summary: cyclists vulnerable. At the time of the site visit, northbound traffic was backing up from the gyratory and the cycle route across the junction was hazardous for cyclists. Numerous cyclists were observed crossing the IRR at this location with difficulty and given that the designated route across the junction for cyclists also appeared to be unclear, therefore causing some confusion, cyclists were forced into making some unsafe movements at the junction to connect up with their route ahead..

RECOMMENDATION

At this time, the Auditor can offer no solution to the safety concern and would welcome any comments the Design Team or the Project Supervisor may have.

3.2 PROBLEM

Location: IRR: northeast nose of the splitter island at the south side of the gyratory, adjacent to the Crossing on the southbound carriageway that is sited north of Bridge Street. Summary: Risk of driver confusion and possible conflicts. The traffic direction sign at this location is at the wrong angle to be seen clearly or understood at a reasonable distance by southbound drivers leaving the gyratory. As a result, drivers would have difficulty reading the sign until they were almost upon it. Any possible confusion could lead to sudden or late lane changing and this could result in conflicts.

RECOMMENDATION Re-align the position of the sign, to face southbound drivers leaving the gyratory.




Corporation Street, junction with Bridgehouses [northwest junction of the gyratory.

3.3 PROBLEM

Location: Footway link on the south side of the bus link, between Bridgehouises and Nursery Street. Summary: Trip hazards for pedestrians in the footway. There is some unfinished work around two service box covers in this section of footway that causes a trip hazard for pedestrians. This problem would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired.

RECOMMENDATION Complete the work around the service boxes to eliminate the trip hazards.

3.4 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street junction with Bridgehouses - the gap between the splitter island on Bridgehouses with a straight-ahead arrow marking for drivers travelling ahead to Chatham Street from Corporation Street. Summary: Stop line in the above gap appears to be confusing. Given that at this location, drivers travelling ahead to Chatham Street would have been stopped at the signal stop line [prior to the pedestrian crossing facility] in the lane marked with A61and a straight-ahead arrow, the purpose of this additional stop line is questionable. RECOMMENDATION At this time, the Auditor can offer no solution to the safety concern and would welcome any comments the Design Team of the Project Supervisor may have.

3.5 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street junction with Bridgehouses - traffic signal located on the island adjacent to the stop line as described in item 3.4. Summary: Signal is confusing fro drivers. Drivers travelling ahead to the the IRR from Corporation Street and approaching the junction in the two lanes marked as A61and with a straight-ahead arrow, may not see the traffic signal as the signal head is at the wrong angle. Any possible confusion could lead to sudden braking or late lane changing and this could result in conflicts.




RECOMMENDATION Re-align the signal head.

3.6 PROBLEM

Location: Corporation Street - pedestrian crossing facilities at the left slip-off lane to Bridgehouses and across Bridgehouses. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians, as a result of pedestrians crossing away from the designated crossing facilities. Because of the stagger of the two-stage Crossing on Bridgehouses and the lack of any pedestrian guardrail in the central island on Bridgehouses, pedestrians were observed crossing in a straight line in both directions across the Bridgehouses junction, between Corporation Street and Chatham Street, instead of following the designated route of the crossing facilities. This is understandable, given that the junction is complex and there are no measures to discourage pedestrians crossing away from the designated facilities. It should be noted that sections of pedestrian guardrail at this location were removed from the proposals as part of a cost-cutting exercise late in the detailed design stage. With regard to this, reference should be made to the IRR Stage 2 Road Safety Audit report - Appendix O [location 6].

RECOMMENDATION

Provide sections of pedestrian guardrail at the above location, as originally proposed, to address the problems now identified.

It should also be noted that the Auditor was contacted about this cost-cutting exercise but opposed the proposals, as this would compromise pedestrian safety. Had these proposals been retained, they would have at least discouraged pedestrians from crossing away from the designated facilities at this location as now described. Chatham Street and Pitsmoor Road and the Rock Street junction

3. 7 PROBLEM

Location: Chatham Street near the junction with Bridgehouses. Summary: Hazards for pedestrians in the footways in the vicinity of the crossing point on the left slip-off from Bridgehouses to Chatham Street. There is some unfinished work around service boxes in the footways at this location that cause trip hazards for pedestrians. This problem would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired.




RECOMMENDATION Complete the work around the service boxes to eliminate the trip hazards.

3.8 PROBLEM

Location: Pitsmoor Road, junction with Bridgehouses.

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving drivers of motor vehicles. Drivers on Pitsmoor Road, approaching the Bridgehouses junction are directed to turn left or right at the junction by the respective arrow markings. To make the right turn, drivers proceed through a gap between two islands in the centre of Bridgehouses, which is some distance away. Those drivers turning right on to Bridghouses have two lanes of inbound traffic on their right and there is a lack of NO-ENTRY signing on this side of the carriageway to give guidance for drivers. The present markings on Pitsmoor road effectively direct right turning drivers into these traffic lanes. If drivers do turn directly right into the two inbound lanes of live traffic on Bridgehouses, then serious collisions could occur. This problem would obviously be more acute during darkness and outside the peak traffic hours, when inbound driver speeds on Bridgehouses would be much higher. In such situations, shunt type conflicts could also occur if drivers turning right from Pitsmoor Road hesitate and brake suddenly in the middle of the Bridgehouses junction. During the site visits, numerous near conflict situations as described were observed. There appeared to be some obvious confusion for drivers and many drivers were observed hesitating in the middle of the Bridgehouses junction before completing the right turn.

RECOMMENDATION Provide further guidance for drivers by the provision of NO ENTRY signs at the intersection with the inbound carriageway. Additionally, provide road marking arrows in the Bridgehouses junction and in the gap between the two splitter islands on Bridgehouses to guide right turning drivers through the junction.




3.9 PROBLEM

Location: Pitsmoor Road junction with Swinton street.

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving drivers emerging on to Pitsmoor Road from Swinton Street. Whilst there is a left turn arrow marking on Swinton Street to direct drivers the correct way along the one-way arrangement, the NO ENTRY markings further up Pitsmoor Road are positioned some distance away from the Swinton Street junction and are therefore not particularly obvious to drivers along Swinton Street approaching the junction. Large vehicles from Swinton Street do access the concrete plant directly across the junction - effectively abusing the Traffic Order. There is a risk that if some drivers follow such a vehicle or at a later date think that the right turn is a prescribed movement, then conflicts could occur. RECOMMENDATION Provide more conspicuous signing/markings on Pitsmoor Road to overcome the above concerns.

3.10 PROBLEM

Location: Chatham Street junction with Rock Street. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving opposing drivers. The NO ENTRY signs at the top of Chatham Road are not particularly conspicuous for drivers approaching from the signal stop line on Pitsmoor Road, north of the junction. The signal stop line is set well back from the junction and the NO ENTRY sign on the north side of Chatham Road is hidden from the view of a driver at the stop line by a high boundary wall. The present NO ENTRY road markings on Chatham Road would become worn in a short time and such drivers may then not see the sign on the south side of Chatham Road. As a result, drivers from Pitsmoor Road could collide with opposing traffic from Chatham Street. This problem would obviously be more acute during darkness. At the time of the site visit, no near conflicts were observed but this may have been because temporary No ENTRY signs were also in place and these were very large and conspicuous to drivers. RECOMMENDATION Provide larger and more conspicuous [permanent] NO ENTRY signs at this location.




Nursery street, junction with the IRR. 3.11 PROBLEM

Location: At the junction. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians. The pedestrian routes across the southeast side of this junction and also across both the inbound and outbound carriageways of the IRR are obstructed at various points by temporary barriers. Pedestrians therefore have to retrace their steps to find an alternative route and risk crossing at least 2 and at the most 5 live lanes of carriageway with limited views of oncoming traffic. During the site visits as part of this Audit, numerous dangerous situations were witnessed involving pedestrians walking in the carriageway. Such situations would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired. RECOMMENDATION Provide and maintain safe pedestrian routes through throughout this junction.




4.0 INNER RELIEF ROAD / SAVILE STREET JUNCTION TO SPITAL HILL AND WICKER, AND WICKER [INCLUDING ALL JUNCTIONS AND OTHER SIDE ROADS]

4.1 GENERAL COMMENT

Location: Throughout this section of the IRR and Savile Street. Summary: Lack of cycle symbol markings in the sections of advisory cycle lanes.

There are insufficient cycle symbol markings in the advisory cycle lanes that are on the main carriageway at the above locations, particularly in the vicinity of the signalised pedestrian crossings to warn pedestrians crossing at these locations of possible cycle activity. RECOMMENDATIION Provide additional cycle symbol markings in the advisory cycle lanes along these sections of carriageway, with particular emphasis on areas near the signalised pedestrian crossings.

IRR junction with Savile Street

4.2 PROBLEM

Location: North footway at the Brunswick Road pedestrian and cycle intersection. Summary: Risk of conflicts involving pedestrians. Temporary barriers obstruct the footway at this location and it is difficult for pedestrians to access the Crossing from both approaches. As a result, pedestrians therefore have to walk in the carriageway to access the Crossing. Such situations would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired. RECOMMENDATION Provide and maintain safe pedestrian routes through throughout this junction.




Savile Street junction with the Wicker and Spital Hill 4.4 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street intersection with the wicker and Spital Hill. Summary: Risk of shunts and other conflicts involving right turners from the Wicker [Walker Street and other junctions] into Savile Street. There are two opposing arrow markings only in the centre the above intersection to guide drivers making turning movements at this junction but there appears to be insufficient space to accommodate opposing right turning movements - particularly for large vehicles. During the site visit, some near conflict situations were observed mainly involving opposing right turners at this intersection and it was also obvious that some drivers were confused by the junction layout as they braked heavily in the middle of the junction and almost caused shunts to occur. RECOMMENDATION Whilst the layout at the above intersection was accepted at the Stage 2 Audit, it was never considered to be ideal. Now that the scheme is in operation, this is confirmed by the near conflict situations observed. At this time, the Auditor can offer no solution to the safety concern and would welcome any comments the Design Team of the Project Supervisor may have.

4.5 PROBLEM

Location: Northeast footway of Savile Street, at the intersection with the Wicker. Summary: Narrow footway width available for pedestrians. Similar to concerns raised relating to other locations, the temporary footway arrangement for pedestrians at this location is too narrow and some pedestrians will inevitably be forced to walk in the carriageway. The routes for pedestrian across Savile Street s at this location are also not clear.

RECOMMENDATION Provide and maintain safe pedestrian routes through throughout this junction.




4.6 PROBLEM

Location: Spital Hill junction with Savile Street. Summary: As outlined before in respect of other locations, the routes for pedestrians across Spital Hill at this location are not clear and there is a risk of conflicts involving pedestrians. At the time of the site visit, some pedestrians were observed walking in the carriageway or crossing away from the designated crossing points as a result of the above. High Trieff Kerbs exist at the intersection of the Savile Street left slip-off with Spital Hill and these would present a further hazard to any pedestrians crossing away from the designated crossing points. There are marks on the kerbs indicating vehicle collisions with the Trieff kerbs and this is possibly as a result of drivers may be making the left slip-off too fast for the given environment. There is a concern that the alignment of the radius at this intersection appears to be much tighter than that shown on the drawing and this may further explain why drivers are colliding with the kerbs. This situation also compromises pedestrian safety, and in such situations the problems would be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired. At this stage of the Audit, there is also a concern that no pedestrian guard railing has been included at the splitter island at the Spital Hill junction to guide pedestrians through the Crossings. If guardrail were included here, the likelihood of pedestrians crossing away from the designated facilities would be significantly reduced therefore reducing the risk of conflicts occurring.




RECOMMENDATION At this time, the Auditor can offer no solution to the safety concern regarding the left turn slip-off and drivers colliding with the Trieff kerbing and would welcome any comments the Design Team of the Project Supervisor may have. It should be noted however that that sections of pedestrian guardrail at the Crossings on Spital Hill and Savile Street at this junction were removed form the proposals as part of a cost-cutting exercise late in the detailed design stage. With regard to this, reference should be made to the IRR Stage 2 Road Safety Audit report - Appendix O [location 7]. It should also be noted that the Auditor was contacted about this cost-cutting exercise but opposed the proposals, as this would compromise pedestrian safety. Had these proposals been retained, they would have at least discouraged pedestrians from crossing away from the designated facilities at the east side of the gyratory as now described. Pedestrian guardrail at the above location should therefore now be provided, as originally proposed. It is elementary that recent residential and commercial developments in the area have significantly increased pedestrian movements at this location since the original design of the IRR scheme. Given the higher traffic speeds at this location [and the lack of traffic calming] this location would be well within the criteria now adopted by the City Council for providing pedestrian guardrail - mainly at city centre sites.

4.7 PROBLEM

Location: Spital hill junction with Savile Street - left slip-off for drivers from Savile Street to Spital Hill.

Summary: Risk of conflicts involving cyclists in the section of advisory cycle lane provided at this location. From the above outlined problems and observations, it is obvious that drivers making the left turn slip off are too close to the kerbs, given that there is evidence of kerb strikes on site. Cyclists using the short length of cycle lane at this location would therefore be vulnerable.

RECOMMENDATION Extend the length of the section of advisory cycle lane at this location, to extend further into Spital Hill. This would encourage drivers to maintain more clearance from the kerbs when making the left slip off and this would in turn mitigate the risk of potential conflict situations occurring with cyclists in the cycle lane.




4.8 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street, inbound approach to the Wicker Summary: As outlined before in respect of other locations, the routes for pedestrians across the 4 lanes of live carriageway on Savile Street at this location are not clear and there is a risk of conflicts involving pedestrians. RECOMMENDATION As item 4.6 - see specific comments with regard to pedestrian guardrail being deleted from the proposals as part of a cost-cutting exercise.

4.9 PROBLEM

Location: Advisory cycle lane.

Summary: Insufficient cycle symbol markings at this location. Given the pedestrian activity at this location and the complicated nature of the junction, some pedestrians may not be aware of cyclists approaching the crossing points. RECOMMENDATION Provide additional cycle symbol markings in the advisory cycle lanes at this location.

4.10 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street, inbound approach to the Wicker

Summary: Lack of general direction signing for drivers. This could result in some drivers being confused and in turn this could lead to conflicts occurring. RECOMMENDATION Provide clearer direction signing for drivers at this location.




4.11 PROBLEM

Location: Savile Street inbound - left turn slip off to Cutlers Gate.

Summary: Risk of over-shoots or shunts or side-swipes occurring at the junction. The signal stop line is set approximately 25 metres back from the actual intersection of Savile Sttreet with Cutlers Gate. Drivers having passed through the signals at the pedestrian crossing point are then faced with a give way arrangement at the intersection. The give way sign at this location is set too high up and is not conspicuous. Drivers may therefore overlook this sign [particularly if the give way markings become covered with dirt or become worn] and either over-shoot the junction or brake heavily and cause shunts. Also, given that there is enough space at the slip-off for two cars to be positioned side by side there is also a risk of side-swipe conflicts occurring in such situations. RECOMMENDATION At the very least, make the give way sign more conspicuous for drivers.

Savile Street - Spital Hill junction to tie-in with existing

4.12 PROBLEM

Location: South footway, approximately 50 metres west of Spital Hill. Summary: Trip hazard for pedestrians. There is some unfinished work around a service box cover at this location that causes a trip hazard for pedestrians. This problem would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired.

RECOMMENDATION Complete the work around the service box to eliminate the trip hazards.

4.13 PROBLEM

Location: South footway, approximately 50 metres west of Spital Hill. Summary: Trip hazard for pedestrians. There is some unfinished work at a pedestrian crossing point across a vehicular access at this location and this causes a trip hazard for pedestrians. This problem would obviously be more acute for the elderly, disabled and visually impaired.




RECOMMENDATION Complete the work at this crossing point. Wicker - Cutlers Gate to Savile Street It should be noted that at the time of the site visits, work was still underway on this section and temporary barriers were in place. As a result, it was not appropriate for an Interim Stage 3 Audit to be carried out.




GENERAL COMMENT - ALL SECTIONS OF THE SCHEME

Location: Various sections of the scheme now subjected to this Audit. Summary: Pedestrians. Vulnerable when using the tactile crossings at signalised pedestrian crossing points and side road crossings. As outlined at items 1.12 and 1.13 in the previous Interim Stage 3 ]Pre-opening] Audit, the tactile crossings at numerous locations have a channel block at the front of the dropped kerbs. This unusual arrangement is hazardous, as pedestrians would be tempted to step into the road onto the channel block [thinking it was the edge of the crossing because the channel block is the same colour as the dropped kerbs] and could be hit by a vehicle turning into the junction. This problem would be more acute when a pedestrian is standing at a crossing and a vehicle is approaching from behind them to turn left into the junction.

RECOMMENDATION Remove the channel block in front of the tactile crossing and reinstate with bituminous material to restore the colour differential at the crossing. NOTE TO THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR

This issue is raised again, given that a response has not been received in respect of the previous Audit as outlined, up to the issue date of this Audit.




S5.1 CONCLUSIONS

From the concerns identified in this report, there are obvious risks of dangerous situations occurring involving pedestrians, cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles. There is a concern that the scheme was fully opened to traffic and the Auditor was not given reasonable notice, i.e. one or two weeks, to carry out an Interim Stage 3 [Pre-opening] Road Safety Audit on these two sections of the scheme. Had the Auditor been given reasonable notice, and subject to similar concerns being identified as in this report, the Auditor [and the Police Road Safety Partnerships Officer ] would have recommended that the scheme should not be fully opened to traffic until such time as all pedestrian routes, including pedestrian links to and from the new signalised crossings at the gyratory junctions or elsewhere, were safe to use. At the very least, before these sections of the scheme were fully opened to traffic it would have been reasonable to expect that all footways and pedestrian links were not obstructed by temporary fencing or site materials unless safe well-signed alternative routes had been provided and that those footways opened to pedestrians had a hazard-free walking surface and were reasonably safe to use by the elderly and people with disabilities, wheelchair users, visually impaired and mothers or carers with prams or pushchairs. Unfortunately, pedestrians are now using certain locations in the sections of the scheme subjected to this Interim Stage 3 Audit and are vulnerable as they are being forced to walk into the carriageway with live traffic. Site observations - see item S1, confirm that some dangerous situations for pedestrians now exist.

Some cycle routes, particularly the shared surfaces, are also not particularly clear because of obstructions - similar to problems identified with pedestrian routes. As a result, cyclists are vulnerable. Many drivers of motor vehicles appear to be confused with some of the road layouts, possibly as a result of the traffic signals not being properly commissioned before the opening date, and are now being forced into potential conflict situations at some junctions because of undue congestion that effectively obstructs traffic lanes and exit routes. It is hoped that when a Stage 3 Audit is carried out at a time when the scheme is fully completed, the RSA Team will then be able to make more site-specific comments regarding the operation of the traffic signals.




6.0 Audit Team Statement I certify that this Audit has been carried out in accordance with the Sheffield City Council Road Safety Audit Standard 2005. AUDIT TEAM LEADER FOR THIS AUDIT John Moseley, I. Eng. FIHIE Signed…………………………..

Engineer Road Safety Team

Transport and Highways Division Dated…………………………… Development Services,

D E L, Sheffield City Council,

Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield S1 2SH




Appendix A

Audit Brief, drawings and documents

See Audit Brief at Appendix A of the Stage 2 Audit report. List of Drawings supplied at Stage 2 of the Audit:

• See Appendix A of the Stage 2 Audit report for list of drawings supplied. AND

• Sign Schedules applicable to the scheme




Appendix B

Comments from South Yorkshire Police

Email dated 23 November and addressed to John Bann, Head of Transport and Highways Division, Development services.




From: [email protected] Sent: 23 November 2007 10:40 To: Bann John Cc: Moseley John; [email protected] Subject: Inner Relief Road - Footway Provision Dear John, I have recently carried out an interim road safety audit with John Moseley on the IRR. I feel compelled to inform you, in advance of John's completed audit, about the deficiencies in pedestrian routes. In particular there are no routes from the bottom of Corporation Street through to the link with Saville Street/Spital Hill and the Wicker. It is possible to walk on a footway for a distance of 100 metres plus and then reach a section of pedestrian barrier that closes the full width of footway at a controlled, but incomplete, crossing point. The pedestrian is then faced with either retracing their steps or choose to cross three live lanes of carriageway with limited views of oncoming vehicles. I witnessed several instances on site of pedestrians walking around these obstructions and putting themselves in grave danger of a collision. It seems incongruous to have declared the relief road open when such situations exist. I believe that the completion of an highway scheme includes footway provision and vulnerable pedestrians cannot just be left to fend for themselves. I am of the opinion that this matter needs attention as a matter of urgency, and look forward to working with your officers to achieve safe pedestrian routes throughout the route. Regards Ian Ian Shelton PC370 Road Safety Partnerships Officer 0114 2202960 http://intranet.southyorks.police.uk/departments/oss/ Internet communications are not secure and therefore South Yorkshire Police cannot accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was sent. This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain privileged information and are intended for the intended recipient, if you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Do not disclose, distribute, or retain this e-mail or any part of it. In the case of a privately generated e-mail, the opinion expressed may not be the opinion of the South Yorkshire Police We believe but do not warrant that this e- mail and any attachments are virus free. You must therefore take full responsibility for virus checking. South Yorkshire Police reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through their networks




Appendix C

Comments from the City Council`s Disability Access Officer Document reference:

Report prepared by Brian Messider




Northern Ring Road Access Audit Lampposts should be positioned 300mm from kerb or to the back edge of the pavement Toucan crossings should have their uprights in the correct position with a push button on the right side with a tactile rotating cone and blister paving which extends to the back of the footway. Please refer to map PDF’s

1) Lamppost not set correctly. 100mm from centre of pavement (approx). 2) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st upright at 300mm from

kerb, 2nd upright centre of pavement. 3) Lamppost not set correctly. 300mm from centre of pavement (approx) 4) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st up right more than

300mm from kerb 2nd up right in centre of pavement. 5) Lamppost not set correctly. 200mm from centre of pavement (approx) 6) Toucan crossing, no issues. 7) Central reservation. A cycle lane branches off at a right angle to the direction

of shared pedestrian and cyclist travel across the carriageway. The raised cycle lane then ends in a drop kerb onto the carriageway. Tactile paving should be used where the cycle lane meets the shared pedestrian and cycle crossing.

8) Toucan crossing, no issues. 9) Drop kerb linking carriageway cycle lane with shared pedestrian and cyclist

pavement. No tactile paving to denote pavement blends with the carriageway. 10) Pedestrian pavement (white granite) and shared pedestrian and cyclist

pavement (red brick) meet and 3 rows of granite cobbles are used to denote this.

11) Uncontrolled crossing, no issues. 12) Drop kerb between carriageway cycle lane and shared pedestrian and cyclist

pavement (red brick). No tactile paving to denote pavement blends with carriageway.

13) Shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick) meets pedestrian pavement (tarmac) 3 rows of granite cobbles are not used here.

14) Traffic lights set to back edge of pavement, however the forecourt of the adjacent development is paved and acts as an extension to the footway, so effectively the traffic light upright is in the centre of the useable pavement.

15) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st upright at back of pavement, 2nd upright centre of pavement.

16) Toucan crossing, no issues. 17) Lamppost at central reservation. Set 600mm from kerb. 18) Toucan crossing, no issues. Control boxes well clustered and located at back

edge of pavement 19) Controlled crossing, no issues.




20) Pedestrian pavement (white granite) and shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick) meet and 3 rows of granite cobbles are not used to denote this.

21) Drop kerb between carriageway cycle lane and shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick). No tactile paving to denote pavement blends with carriageway.

22) River Don Walk staggered entrance gate. A barrier to some electric wheelchairs and most mobility scooters. Difficult to negotiate by cyclists.

23) Controlled crossing. Tactile cone on the small push button pad not the larger pad with the illuminating red and green man when crossing north to south.

24) Crossing not in operation 25) Crossing not in operation 26) Controlled crossing. Tactile cone on the small push button pad not the larger

pad with the illuminating red and green man when crossing west to east. 27) Footway staggered at right angle, should be chamfered at 45 degrees for

guide dogs. Junction box located behind pavement in landscaping. 28) Footway chamfered at 45 degrees, better flow for pedestrians, guidance cane

and dog users. 29) Toucan crossing, tactile rotating cone temperamental – functioned first time

used not on second. Button only on right hand side when crossing west to east. Button facing into the carriageway. Over a minute to activate.

30) Toucan crossing. Buttons only on right hand side when crossing west to east buttons on two sides when crossing east to west.

31) Controlled crossing, no issues. 32) Controlled crossing. Tactile rotating cone when crossing south to north is not

functioning. 33) Crossing not in operation 34) Controlled crossing Button only on right hand side. 35) Crossing not in operation 36) Crossing not in operation 37) Site works still being undertaken 38) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st up right more than

300mm from kerb 2nd up right more central to the pavement as a result. Pavement is very wide at this point.

39) 9 trees planted to back edge of pavement 40) Lamppost more than 300mm from kerb. 300mm from centre of pavement

(approx). 41) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st up right more than

300mm from kerb 2nd up right 200mm from centre of footway (approx). 42) Lamppost not set correctly, 1m from kerb, 300mm from centre of pavement

(approx). 43) Cluster of vehicle directional sign and control boxes set to back of pavement

(facing road from Saville St). 44) Lamppost not set correctly, 1m from kerb, 300mm from centre of pavement

(approx). 45) Pedestrian pavement (white granite) and shared pedestrian and cyclist

pavement (red brick) meet and 3 rows of granite cobbles are not used to denote this.




46) Drop kerb between carriageway cycle lane and shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick). No tactile paving to denote pavement blends with carriageway.

47) Shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick) meets pedestrian pavement (tarmac) 3 rows of granite cobbles are not used here.

48) Toucan crossing, no issues. 49) Central reservation enclosed with barriers. Landscaping could have been

used on either side of the route avoiding the use of barriers here which appear to deter pedestrians from using this crossing. Observed people crossing informally across both carriageways. The crossing should be barrier free and barriers used either side of the central reservation.

50) Toucan crossing, no issues 51) Crossing not in operation 52) Crossing not in operation 53) Drop kerb between carriageway cycle lane and shared pedestrian and cyclist

pavement (red brick). No tactile paving to denote pavement blends with carriageway.

54) Shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick) meets pedestrian pavement (tarmac) 3 rows of granite cobbles are used here.

55) Shared pedestrian and cyclist pavement (red brick) meets pedestrian pavement (tarmac) 3 rows of granite cobbles are used here.

56) Lamppost not set correctly, 300mm from centre of pavement (approx). 57) Lamppost not set correctly, 1m from kerb, 200mm from centre of pavement

(approx). 58) 3 temporary bus stops to be removed. 59) Lamppost not set correctly, 600mm from kerb, 300mm from centre of

pavement (approx). 60) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st upright at 400mm from

kerb, 2nd upright 100mm from centre of pavement. 61) Lamppost not set correctly, 1m from kerb, 200mm from centre of pavement

(approx). 62) Tree not to back of footway by approx 200mm. 63) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st upright at 300mm from

back of footway, 2nd upright centre of pavement. 64) Lamppost set correctly, to back of pavement. 65) Vehicle information sign supported on 2 uprights. 1st upright at back of

pavement 2nd upright 400mm from kerb.




APPENDIX C


Interim Stage 3 Audit Report - Prior to Wicker Resurfacing

Document reference:

Report dated 12 June 2008




SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD NORTHERN SECTION STAGE 2 STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [COMPLETION] PRIOR TO THE WICKER RESURFACING EXTRACT FROM FULL STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT - WICKER SECTION ONLY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS - ROAD SAFETY Safety Audit Ref: TE/16-083/BA682 Date: 12 JUNE 2008







SHEFFIELD INNER RELIEF ROAD

NORTHERN SECTION STAGE 2 STAGE 3 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [COMPLETION] PRIOR TO THE WICKER RESURFACING EXTRACT ONLY FROM THE FULL RSA REPORT [WICKER SECTION] DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] 03.09.2008 AND RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] 03.09.2008 [The above Design Team Response and RSA Team Comments result from a meeting with Howard Saffer and Simon Botterill of the Design Team at the Carbrook Offices on 03.09.2008]

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this short report, extracted from the full Stage 3 Road Safety

Audit Report, is to inform Street Force Traffic Design of some road marking and coloured surfacing issues that need to be addressed with some urgency, following road safety concerns identified during a site visit to the Wicker area as part of the above road safety audit.

The Audit Team Membership for this Audit was: John Moseley (Audit Team Leader for this Audit) Principal Road Safety Engineer, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council

Specialist Advisors, appointed by the Audit Team for advice on matters relating to their particular areas of expertise were: PC Ian Shelton Road Safety Partnerships Officer, South Yorkshire Police PC Stuart Williams South Yorkshire Police Andy Bennett Principal Engineer,

Traffic Information and Control, Transport and Highways, Development Services, Sheffield City Council




1.2 A site visit to the Wicker area was undertaken on 4 June 2008 by the Audit Team Leader and the above Specialist Advisors. All recommendations made by the Auditor in this report, together with the reasons for making such recommendations, are endorsed by the Engineers and Police who were present during the site visit. The outlined remedial measures were seen as being very urgent, in order to address the numerous road safety concerns identified during the site visit.

1.3 It is understood from an email sent to the Auditor on 11 June 2008 by Steve

Cosgrove the Project Supervisor, that road surfacing and associated work will be carried out on the Wicker during Sunday 22 June 2008. It is therefore pertinent that the remedial measures involving road markings and coloured road surfacing now recommended in this extract from the Full Stage 3 Road Safety Audit Report should be incorporated in the road surfacing programme for that time, to mitigate the risk of any serious vehicle collisions occurring.

2.0 Scheme Description 2.1 For a full description of the scheme, see the Stage 2 Audit Brief. 3.0 Items From The Previous Stage 2 Audit 3.1 The safety aspects of the scheme were the subject of comment in the Final

Stage 2 Audit Report dated 24 April 2007. All issues raised in the Stage 2 Audit were resolved and so this stage of the audit was considered closed on this date.

4.0 Notes For The Design Team - Unresolved Issues

4.1 In accordance with the Arbitration Procedure [outlined in the Sheffield City


4.2 Items in the Audit report that are not acted upon, either because they are felt


4.3 The Arbiter is to be the Head of Transport and Highways or his nominees.




5.0 ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THIS [STAGE 3] AUDIT SITE VISIT

5. 1 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker, junction with Stanley Street and Willey Street. Summary: Misleading right turn arrow road marking - risk of out-bound drivers on the Wicker colliding with opposing traffic on the left slip-off to the Wicker from Cutlers Gate. Out-bound drivers on the Wicker heading towards Stanley Street [who have possibly missed the Bus Lane signing] are faced with a right turn arrow road marking on the nearside of the road between Stanley Street and Willey Street. It is possible that this right turn arrow marking could direct drivers on to the wrong side of the road [drivers could instinctively move over to the wrong side of the road in order to avoid the Bus Lane now in front of them] where there would be a risk of serious conflicts occurring with opposing drivers joining the Wicker from the left turn slip-off from Cutlers Gate. See site photograph Ref. 5.1.1below.

Ref: 5.1.1 Wicker, between Stanley Street and Willey Street




RECOMMENDATION Remove the right turn arrow road marking at the above location and provide a straight-ahead arrow road marking [in an offside position on the road for out-bound drivers] on the Cutlers DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1]

Agreed. The right turn arrow marking has been removed and a straight-ahead arrow has been provided on the opposite side of the road. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted, albeit that the number of drivers reaching this point could be significantly reduced by more positive directional markings on the 3-lane Commercial Street approach to Park Square Roundabout: the A61N marking in the nearside could be removed and the words VICTORIA QUAYS ONLY added. This would then dedicate the central lane to A61N movements only and drivers would be guided into the respective lanes for the A61N on the roundabout.

Additionally, provide a BUSES ONLY or BUS LANE road marking immediately after Stanley Street and a NO ENTRY road marking on the left slip-off from Cutlers Gate to the Wicker [adjacent to the nose of the splitter island], as a warning to any drivers who may have missed the Bus Lane signing.

DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] More appropriate bus gate signing and road markings have also been provided at the start of the bus lane on the Wicker, north of Stanley Street. NOTE FROM THE DESIGN TEAM [1] These items may be reviewed in several months time after enforcement has been operational to see if the current measures are sufficient. RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.




5.2 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker, junction with the IRR and Cutlers Gate

Summary: Misleading road markings. There are opposing direction arrow road markings [indicating two-way traffic along the Wicker] in the gap between the central reservations of Cutlers Gate and the IRR that is part of the Bus Lane that has green coloured surfacing. For drivers travelling through the junction on Cutlers Gate or the IRR, the arrow markings are misleading and give a wrong message to any drivers who are faced with a banned right turn from Cutlers Gate and a banned left turn from the IRR. Drivers who were cautioned by the Police officers at the time of the RSA 3 site visit for carrying out these banned turns argued in their defence that the road markings at this location were very misleading. See site photograph Ref. 5.2.1 below

Ref: 5.2.1 Wicker junction with the IRR and Cutlers Gate RECOMMENDATION Remove the direction arrow road markings at this location. DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] Agreed. The markings will be removed.




RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted. Additionally, provide straight-ahead arrow markings with AHEAD ONLY markings in both lanes of the westbound and eastbound dual carriageway, either side of the central reservation at the junction. Such markings would be duplicates of the markings that already exist on the IRR and Cutlers Gate approaches to the Wicker junction. See site photograph Ref.5.2.1.1below.

Ref. 5.2.1.1 Cutlers Gate near the junction with the wicker and IRR

DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] An AHEAD ONLY marking has been provided to supplement the straight-ahead arrow marking prior to the signal stop line on the Wicker, at the junction with the IRR. This is considered to be more appropriate than AHEAD ONLY markings on both lanes of the westbound and eastbound dual carriageway, either side of the central reservation at the junction as recommended.

RSA TEAM COMMENTS [1] Accepted.




5. 3 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker, section of Bus Lane between the Cutlers Gate and the Savile Street junctions. Summary: Green coloured surfacing in Bus Lane confusing for drivers. The bus Lane surfacing on this section is not continuous and is in strips. This is therefore confusing for drivers, albeit that any drivers on the Wicker who have reached this point are technically committing a Traffic Offence as they should have been directed along Stanley Street by the Bus Lane signing. Despite the additional signing that has been provided, the level of abuse at this point [due to disregard of the signing or because of genuine confusion] is still very high. The inconsistency of the green surfacing in the Bus Lane obviously does not help the situation. See site photograph Ref: 5.2.1 on page 5 of this report. RECOMMENDATION Provide additional green surfacing in this section of the Bus Lane [therefore not confusing for drivers]. DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] The bus lane surfacing is in accordance with DfT Bus Lane Regulations and therefore needs to remain, at the very least until the situation at this location has been re-assessed, following the re-introduction of camera enforcement. The previous agreed alterations should nevertheless address any confusion for drivers with the situation at this location. NOTE FROM THE DESIGN TEAM [1] These items may be reviewed in several months time after enforcement has been operational to see if the current measures are sufficient.





5. 4 PROBLEM

Location: Wicker, section of Bus Lane between the Cutlers Gate and the Scholey Street junctions.

Summary: Straight-ahead arrow marking confusing for drivers. A straight-ahead arrow marking is positioned on the outbound side of the carriageway in this section of Bus Lane, near Andrew Lane. Notwithstanding the previous problems outlined at item 5.2 and the obvious neglect by drivers to observe the Bus Lane signing and subsequent contravention of Traffic Regulations, the arrow marking at this location is misleading and appears to be unnecessary. See site photograph 5.2.1 on page 6 for location details, albeit that the actual position of the arrow road marking is not clearly visible. RECOMMENDATION Remove the arrow road marking. DESIGN TEAM RESPONSE [1] This will be reviewed following the re-introduction of camera enforcement. A NO RIGHT TURN sign is situated on Scholey Street and this alone should be a suitable warning for drivers not to turn left out of Scholey Street on to the bus lane. NOTE FROM THE DESIGN TEAM [1] These items may be reviewed in several months time after enforcement has been operational to see if the current measures are sufficient.





APPENDIX D


Major Cycle Issues reported by The Cyclists` Forum

Document reference: Report

Northern Inner Relief Road – Stage 2

Major Cycle Issues, March 2009 There has mainly been a lot of praise for the cycle facilities provided as part of the Relief Road and this should not be forgotten. However, there have been five major issues raised by cyclists as follows: 1. Bridgehouses Gyratory Northbound, after passing over Borough Bridge, there is a left turn only lane to Bridgehouses and Mowbray Street, the centre lane is ahead to Chatham Street and also right to continue on the Relief Road. Cyclists, wishing to continue along the Relief Road at this junction are to the left of the centre lane and often find themselves being ‘cut-up’ by cars accessing Chatham Street [See item 3.17 of the Full Stage 3 Audit Report for RSA Team Comments and Recommendation] 2. West Bar Roundabout Cyclists approaching this roundabout, travelling south along Corporation Street are in the nearside cycle lane. The cycle lane stops short of the roundabout and motorists entering the roundabout cut the corner of the entry radius, cutting cyclists up. [See item 2.19 of the Full Stage 3 Audit Report for RSA Team Comments and Recommendation]




3. Savile Street Eastbound The Relief Road works tie into Savile Street on a left hand bend, just as the cycle lane finishes. Many vehicles ‘cut the corner’ and cut-up any cyclists at this point. My understanding is that the redevelopment of the adjacent site will provide a widening of the road to allow the continuation of the cycle lane. If and when this happens, this Issue should be largely resolved. [See item 4.23 of the Full Stage 3 Audit Report for RSA Team Comments and Recommendation] 4. Shalesmoor Roundabout Approaching this roundabout on Hoyle Street, a cycle lane is provided on the nearside and shortly after this the tram tracks traverse the road at a fairly narrow angle. Although the nearside kerb and track alignment has not changed, other road users feel that cyclists should be in the cycle lane and don’t expect them to leave it, which they need to do to cross the tracks at a wider angle (basically the cycle lane is not wide enough to facilitate crossing the tracks safely and it may be that the lanes were wider previously). [See item 1.18 of the Full Stage 3 Audit Report for RSA Team Comments and Recommendation] 5. Savile Street / IRR Junction On approaching the IRR from Savile Street, just as the lights are changing to red, there is insufficient inter-green time for a cyclist to get to the cycle lane on the far side of the junction (i.e. westbound on the IRR), a distance of around 50m from the stop line on Savile Street. [See item 4.22 of the Full Stage 3 Audit Report for RSA Team Comments and Recommendation]

irr full rsa 3 report - whatdotheyknow

Documents