Corrib Onshore Pipeline

Transcription

1 Upgraded Haul Route Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report Consultant Engineer Roughan & O Donovan Arena House Arena Road Sandyford Dublin 18 Client: Patrick J Tobin & Co Ltd., Fairgreen House, Fairgreen Road, Galway.

2 Report Document No: Made:... Checked:... Approved:... Gareth Mitchell Michael Murphy Gareth Mitchell Description Issue Made Checked Approved Date Draft Issue 1 GTM MM GTM 03/05/2011 Issue 2 GTM MM GTM 30/05/2011 Ref: May 2011 Page i

3 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction Methodology Information Provided Comments / Assumptions Findings Table 1 Safety Concerns, Findings and Recommendations Conclusions... 7 Appendix A Feedback Form... 8 Ref: May 2011 Page ii

4 1. Introduction 1.1. Patrick J Tobin & Co Ltd. were engaged by Shell E&P Ireland Ltd to carry out the design of an upgrade to a number of roads and junctions that will be used as a haul route as part of the Corrib Onshore Pipeline in Co Mayo. Under condition 25 of An Bord Pleanala s decision, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is required to be carried out on the proposed haul route in accordance with NRA HD19 in Volume 5 of the National Road Authorities Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Patrick J Tobin & Co Ltd. engaged Roughan & O Donovan to carry out this Stage 1 Road Safety Audit The proposed haul route runs from Bangor, Co Mayo to the Corrib Onshore Pipeline compound at Glenard, using the R313, L1204, R314 and L1202. Sections of these roads have been upgraded by road widening and or pavement strengthening. There are also 5 new or improved junctions along the route The R313, R314 and L1204 are generally good quality roads with a good road surface. The L1202 is a lower quality road with narrow sections that could result is problems with two vehicles passing. A Traffic Management Plan has been developed that will put measures in place to overcome these issues The haul route uses existing Regional and Local roads for its entire length. 2. Methodology 2.1. The following people made up the audit team: Team Leader Gareth Mitchell CEng MIEI Team Member Michael Murphy Eng Tech IEI 2.2. Roughan & O Donovan (ROD) confirm that none of the audit team members were involved in the development of the design of the scheme The audit was conducted during April and May This report outlines the findings and recommendations following a site visit during daytime carried on Thursday 28 th April 2011 when weather conditions were dry but overcast. 3. Information Provided 3.1. Documents: Corrib Onshore Gas Pipeline Traffic Management Plan 3.2. Drawings: Drawing Number Title B Road network between Srahmore and Glengad requiring Road Safety Audit B Layout Plan Showing Road Network A Layout Plan Showing Advance Warning Signs and Haul Routes B Layout Plan Showing L1204 & Haul Route B Road Improvements to L1202 Ref: May 2011 Page 1

5 Drawing Number Title D Layout Plan Showing Road Signage Details for L E Layout Plan Showing Road Signage Details for L C Layout Plan Showing Existing Site Entrance Details to Bellanaboy Terminal Gate A Layout Plan Showing Site Entrance Details to LVI Site at Glengad F Layout Plan Showing Site Entrance Details to Site Compound at Aghoos Access A F Layout Plan Showing Site Entrance Details to Site Compound at Aghoos Access B D Layout Plan Showing Existing Site Entrance Details to Srahmore Peat Deposition Site B Key Plan of Haul Route from the Port of Dublin & Killybegs A Extent of Convoy System Along L A Proposed Holding Area Ballanaboy Terminal Gate A Community Services Along Haul Routes Domestic and Recycling Collections A Community Bus Services Along Haul Routes A School Bus Services Along Haul Routes A Site Compound at Aghoos Access B Vertical Visibility A Layout Plan Showing Site Entrance Details to Site Compound at Aghoos Access A A Layout Plan Showing Site Entrance Details to Site Compound at Aghoos Access B 4. Comments / Assumptions 4.1. The management of construction traffic on the L1202 is dependent on the implementation of the Traffic Management Plan. This plan should be kept under review to ensure that the procedures within the plan are being properly implemented, to ensure that the procedures are effective and to identify improvements that could be made The drawings show the provision of Project Specific Speed Limits in the form of the speed limit sign F401 of Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. This form of sign is intended to advise of a speed limit ahead rather than its use in this case. It is considered that the form of speed limit sign for a Cautionary Speed, as shown on P011 of Chapter 8 of the TSM, would be more appropriate. Ref: May 2011 Page 2

6 5. Findings 5.1. The findings and recommendations of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit are outlined in Table 1 below. Ref: May 2011 Page 3

7 6. Table 1 Safety Concerns, Findings and Recommendations Item Safety Concern Recommendation General 1 The drawings show no overtaking signs at various locations along the scheme. It was noted that some of these signs are located where the existing centreline is broken. These signs are intended to be used as a backup warning to a solid centreline in the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM). This contradicting information may be confusing for drivers. It is unclear whether these no-overtaking signs are intended to be permamant or to facilitate the construction works. As the signs are intermittent, drivers are more likely to base their decision to overtake on the markings rather than the signs. 2 All the accesses reviewed were gated for security reasons. Any vehicles using the accesses would be required to stop on the public road to wait for the gate to be opened. This increases the risk of collision between traffic using the accesses and through traffic. It may also result in vehicles overtaking the stationary vehicle in the opposing lane, increasing the risk of head-on collisions. The requirement for the prohibition of overtaking should be reviewed. If it is required for any significant period of time, the centreline markings should be changed to solid lines in accordance with the TSM. Care should be taken to ensure that there is sufficient room for a vehicle to pull off the road when using these accesses. If sufficient space is available, procedures should be implemented for the gates to be opened without the need for vehicles to stop on the through road. Ref: Ref: May 2011 Page 4

8 Glengad Site Access 3 The visibility from the Glengad site access is restricted to a distance corresponding to a reduced Project Specific Speed Limit of 30km/h, although the site access is shown outside the project specific speed limit zone. The sign shown in Appendix 7 of the Traffic Management Plan suggests that this relates only to Construction Traffic, the form of sign is the form used in the TSM for Speed Limit Ahead rather than a project specific speed limit. The speed limit sign is therefore non-standard and is not enforceable for non construction traffic. The L1202 in the vicinity of the junction is of reduced width. Large vehicles exiting the site are likely to cross over into the opposing lane. A non-construction vehicle is not bound by the project speeds limit and is therefore likely to be exceeding the 30km/h speed limit. This could result in a non-construction vehicle travelling around the bends to the east of the site at a speed in excess of 30km/h and encountering a construction vehicle blocking their way increasing the risk of collision. It is noted that the Traffic Management Plan does not address the issue of the visibility of the Glengad Site Access. L The Traffic Management Plans detail the measures to be put in place where construction traffic meets on the Priority System controlled sections of the L1202. It was noted that at some bridges/culverts where the road width narrows locally along this section, a construction vehicle and a car would not be able to pass at these locations. This increases the risk of head-on collisions or collisions with the bridge parapet / culvert headwall.. 5 The visibility at the L1202 R314 junction is restricted by vegetation, particularly to the right. It appears that trimming has been carried out but new growth has grown within the visibility splay. This increases the risk of collisions between vehicles on the R313 and vehicles turning out of the L1202. Consideration should be given to the imposition of a Roadworks Speed Limit in the vicinity of the Glengad to restrict the speed of non-construction traffic along with associated Traffic Management. The signage associated with roadworks speed restrictions is shown within Chapter 8 of the TSM. The vegetation to the left of the site access should be cut back further to maximise the visibility available. The vegetation should be monitored with regular trimming carried out to maintain the visibility. Consideration should be given to updating the Traffic Management Plan to address visibility at the access and to address the swept path of vehicles turning out from the access. Consideration should be given to the provision of appropriate warning signage at the locations where the road narrows locally to advise nonconstruction traffic that there is insufficient width for a car and construction vehicle to pass. Care should be taken to ensure that the visibility splays are cleared of vegetation and that maintenance is carried out to keep them clear. Ref: Ref: May 2011 Page 5

9 L5244 (Bellanaboy Terminal Gate 2) 6 The visibility along the L5224 to the right from Gate 2 appears is restricted by vegetation. It appears that trimming has been carried out but new growth has grown within the visibility splay. This increases the risk of collisions between vehicles on the L5244 and vehicles exiting Gate 2. Srahmore Deposition Site Access 7 The existing access into the deposition site is gated near the junction with the R313. Should the gates be closed when vehicles arrive, it could result in vehicle backing up onto the R313, increasing the risk of collision with vehicles on the R313. Alternately construction vehicles could stop on the L1204, forcing non construction traffic to pass them in the opposing traffic lane increasing the risk of head-on collisions. Care should be taken to ensure that the visibility splays are cleared of vegetation and that maintenance is carried out to keep them clear. The access to the deposition site should be managed to ensure that vehicles arriving at the site are not required to wait on either the R313 or the L1204. Should there be a requirement for trucks to wait on arrival, a formal stopping area should be provided. Ref: Ref: May 2011 Page 6

10

11 Appendix A Feedback Form Item No. To be Completed by Designer Problem Accepted (yes / no) Recommended measures accepted (yes / no) Describe alternative measure(s). Give reason for not accepting recommendation 1 Y Y The no overtaking signs have been reviewed and relocated to locations where continuous white lines are installed along the centreline. These sign locations have been amended on drawing Rev E and Rev F in the TMP. 2 Y Y For security purposes the compound gates will not be set back from the STOP Line of the access junction with the L1202. However the SEPIL Transport Foreman will ensure that the Traffic Management Operatives at the compound access gates will coordinate gate opening before construction vehicles reach the access. The effectiveness of this practice will be reviewed with Mayo County Council throughout the Works period. 3 Y Y (part) There are no proposals to amend speed limits at this junction - See Supplementary Note Below. To be completed by Audit Team Leader Alternative reason accepted by auditors (yes / no) Visibility splays will be monitored by SEPIL and Mayo County Council at all junctions along the haul for the duration of the Works and when necessary, hedgerows will trimmed back to maximise visibility. This hedgerow trimming will be carried out in consultation with the project ecologist. The proposed Convoy Procedure in Appendix 5 of the TMP specifies that the junction will be typically used by heavy construction traffic under a controlled procedure with an escort lead vehicle and / or TMO at the gate to control vehicle exit. 4 Y Y The design team has reviewed the existing road narrowing locations and have noted that the narrowing at chainage E4+700 will require road narrowing warning signs in the south bound direction (northbound signage Ref: Ref: May 2011 Page 8

12 Item No. To be Completed by Designer Problem Accepted (yes / no) Recommended measures accepted (yes / no) Describe alternative measure(s). Give reason for not accepting recommendation is already in place). Road Narrows Warning Sign (W071) shall be erected and is included on drawing Rev F. All other culvert crossings between chainage E4+875 and E7+865 have a consistent with as the approaching section of road. 5 Y Y Visibility splays will be monitored by SEPIL and Mayo County Council at all junctions along the haul for the duration of the Works and when necessary, hedgerows will trimmed back to maximise visibility. This hedgerow trimming will be carried out in consultation with the project ecologist. 6 Y Y At the time of the Road Safety Audit site visit the hedgerow trimming had not taken place at the Terminal Gate 2 Access with the L5244. Drawing Rev C shows the extent of hedgerow clearance and this will take place before the commencement of the Onshore Pipeline Works, will be monitored by SEPIL and Mayo County Council for the duration of the Works and when necessary, hedgerows will trimmed back to maximise visibility. This hedgerow trimming will be carried out in consultation with the project ecologist. 7 Y Y The existing gate to the Srahmore Deposition Site is set back approximately 12m from the STOP line and is sufficient setback for Bord Na Mona staff to open the gate before heavy haulage operations start. The Transport Foreman shall liaise with the Bord Na Mona foreman to ensure the Srahmore Deposition Site gate is open before releasing haulage vehicles onto the public road from the peat excavation sites. To be completed by Audit Team Leader Alternative reason accepted by auditors (yes / no) It should be noted that this junction has previously been in operation for the terminal peat haulage operation and no traffic incidents were recorded at this junction. Ref: Ref: May 2011 Page 9

13