Road Safety Audit Report

Project Name
MAF Maydan Al Fath junction to Pool Car Parking
Sub-project: Existing road Design Stage Existing road

Client Principal Consultant Road Safety Audit Team

PDO MSE

Sasa Kocic, Team Leader Amour Al Sharjy, Team Memeber

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT

We certify that we have examined the drawings presented as a part of this project. The Road Safety Audit has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any feature that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the scheme. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated suggestions for safety improvements that we recommend should be studied for implementation. No one on the Audit Team has been involved with the design of the measures. AUDIT TEAM LEADER: Name: Position: Sasa Kocic RSST Controller Coast Signed: .................................... Date: 04.08.2012

Organization: Sheida International LLC Address: Muscat, Minal Al Fahal, P.O. Box 959, PC 116

AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:

Name: Amour Al Sharjy Position: RSST Assistant Coast Organization: Sheida International LLC

Signed: ..................................... Date: 04.08.2012

Address: Muscat, Minal Al Fahal, P.O. Box 959, PC 116

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION Commission

1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 4 Road Safety Audit carried out on the existing road in MAF. 1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by RSST Sheida in accordance with the request from the MSE department on 04.08.2012 together with the visit to the site of the scheme. 1.2 Terms of Reference

The Audit Team has examined and reported on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented. To clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation to resolve a problem the Audit Team has referred to a design standard or the international good practices. 1.2.1 Unless general to the scheme, all comments and recommendations are referenced to the locations indicated. 1.3 Main Parties to the Audit

1.3.1 Client Organization Client Officer: Mahrooqi Saleh MSE132, Petroleum Development Oman 1.3.2 Design Organization Designer: 1.4 Purpose of the Scheme

1.4.1 The purpose of the scheme is to provide safe route for the drivers and the pedestrians through the MAF and to the parking facilities in MAF.

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

ITEMS RAISED AT THE STAGE 4 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 2.1 Speed humps

2.1.1 PROBLEM Location: Minor approach road to the junction Summary: The speed humps are positioned in a manner that is not appropriate for the location, as they are to close and the first one is higher than the second one (the first one is even higher than the standard requires)

2.1.2 PROBLEM Location: Minor approach road to the junction Summary: Pedestrian crossing is not raised and with the speed humps it is only protected from the minor road and not from the vehicles turning onto the minor road from the major road

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

2.1.2 PROBLEM Location: Pedestrian walkway close to the road (not shaded) Summary: Pedestrian walkway is ending with a high curb and it is not leading to the pedestrian crossing but it rather continues to the opposite side and the walls of the ditch are presenting a problem for pedestrians who need to go to the pedestrian crossing therefore pedestrians are encouraged to cross away from the pedestrian crossing.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Remove the speed humps and construct raised pedestrian crossing according to the standards 2. Construct a continuance of the pedestrian walkway leading to the pedestrian crossing in order to encourage the people who are walking on the walkway close to the road to use the pedestrian crossing 3. Place guardrails on the walkway close to the road in order to lead the people to the pedestrian crossing and discourage the crossing of the street away from the pedestrian crossing

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

ZEBRA SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLIST

STAGE:

Existing

Comment Street lighting poor Sign lighting poor or not working Scheme location poor Visibility Issues at crossings Markings zig-zag inadequate Signs incorrect location of new signs Drainage - poor drainage may cause skidding hazard Signs additional warning signs required Signs relocate or remove existing signs Signs require temporary signs when crossing new

Main road user affected All All All Driver Driver Driver

Control Data Source

Road Safety Findings

There is not enough visibility for the drivers of the vehicles coming from the Al tayf parking and turning right at the junction Missing zig-zag markings on the approach to the crossing

Driver

Driver

The hazard warning signs on the junction approaches on the main road

Driver

Driver

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

Beacons additional required Bollards too close to curb edge Markings or signing confusing or inadequate Signs obscured by existing sign Speed remove or replace existing cushions

Driver Shade and staircase are reducing the visibility for the right turn drivers

Driver

Driver

Driver The speed humps are positioned to close; although the speed hump close to the junction is not really a speed hump but a protection for some underground wire facility, but the position of the two makes undesirable effect on the drivers. Also the height of the hump is 10 cm which is higher that the standard height for these kind of road humps

Driver

Visibility Stop lines visibility poor Width may be restricted by parked cars Anti-skid not provided or inadequate length Guard rail inadequate or inappropriate

Driver

Driver

Driver / pedestrian

Pedestrian

Width inadequate footway width

Pedestrian

The footway width is 1 meter on the nonshaded footway, while the shaded footway is limited by the width of the shade to 1.5m

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout

Parking on refuges or in walk area or driving over footway Slip caused by debris or poor drainage Ditches in pedestrian crossing area Trip caused by poor footway surface Remove cycle lane through crossing Width - signal poles or signs or guard rail or vegetation restrict footway width Paving - existing bollard / manhole in center of tactile paving Tactile paving and dropped crossing issues at crossing points

Pedestrian

Pedestrian There is a dich wall limiting the movement of the pedestrians on a non-shaded walkway

Pedestrian

Pedestrian Pedestrian / Cyclist

Pedestrian / Mobility impaired

Sight / mobility impaired

Sight impaired/ Pedestrians

Road Safety Audit Report for the Existing layout