Auckland Traffic Management Unit Traffic Signal Design Review Guidelines. Version 1.0

Transcription

1 Auckland Traffic Management Unit Traffic Signal Design Review Guidelines Version 1.0 August 2010

2 Disclaimer This document is subject to Copyright Laws. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of the managing participants of the Traffic Management Unit. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Traffic Management Unit constitutes an infringement of copyright. Every attempt was made to ensure that the information in this document was correct at the time of publication. Any errors should be reported as soon as possible so that corrections can be issued. Comments and suggestions for future editions are welcomed. All rights are reserved. Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date Prepared by Authors Reviewed by Approved by Auckland Traffic Management Unit (TMU) Andrew Metge Joanne Payne Matthew Hoyle Traffic Management Unit (TMU) New Zealand Transport Agency Q4 Building Level 1 68 / 76 Taharoto Road Takapuna Auckland 0622 Private Bag Auckland 1143 New Zealand Telephone: (64) (9) Facsimile: (64) (9) Traffic Signal Design Review Guidelines Version 1.0

3 Document History and Status Revision Date Prepared By Authorised By Description 1.0 August 2010 Andrew Metge Matthew Hoyle Distribution of Copies: Copy No. Quantity and Format Issued To Traffic Signal Design Review Guidelines Version 1.0

4 Contents 1. Introduction Purpose of Document Related Documents TMU Traffic Signal Engineers Functions of a Design Review Limits of Authority 2 2. Design Review Process Requests for Service Design Review Tracking Information Requirements Response Timeframes Design Review Response Form Design Review Check Communication 4 3. Reviewing a Traffic Signals Design Design Review Comments General Comments Geometrics and Layout Operation Pole and Lantern Layout Controller, Cabling, Ducting and Chambers Detectors Pedestrian Facilities Cyclist Facilities Street Lighting Signs Bus Facilities 7

5 Figure Index Figure 1: Communication Lines for Traffic Signals Design Reviews 4 Figure 2: Communications Flow Chart 19 Appendices A Request for Service Flow Chart B Design Review Form Coversheet C Design Review Prompt (Issues for Consideration) D Communications Flow Chart

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Document The purpose of this document is to set out the process a TMU Traffic Signal Engineer (TSE) is to follow when requested to undertake a Traffic Signal Design Review. This document covers the design review process from the initial request through to undertaking the review and reporting. 1.2 Related Documents When undertaking a Traffic Signal Design Review, the latest versions of the following documents should be referred to in conjunction with this procedures manual. TMU Traffic Signals Design Guidelines; Latest versions of Austroads guidelines; TMU report for Pedestrian Phase Operation TMU report for the Installation of LEDs at Traffic Signals; TMU report for the Review of Filtered Right Turns at Traffic Signals; Other relevant TMU Process and Procedures Documents; Traffic Control Devices Rule; Other relevant New Zealand standards and guidelines e.g. MOTSAM, RTS14 etc; Road Controlling Authority (RCA) policies and requirements. 1.3 TMU Traffic Signal Engineers Traffic Signal Design Reviews are carried out by competent TMU Traffic Signal Engineers. The TSE is responsible for reviewing, identifying, recording and reporting issues regarding the submitted design. Where there are areas of the design to be reviewed that are outside the competencies of the TSE, the TSE will inform the Technical Services Manager to organise an engineer with the relevant competencies to assist in completing the traffic signal design review. 1.4 Functions of a Design Review The key function of a design review is to promote a consistent application of standards across the region and to ensure signal designs are to the highest standard, with variations being the exception rather than the norm. It is not the role of the TMU to determine the purpose of the design. This is the RCA s decision and there will be a number of reasons why signals are considered. A TSE s role when undertaking a Traffic Signal Design Review is to check safety and efficiency have been considered. A TSE will also consider whether the design presented is appropriate to meet the design requirements and identify areas that need to be re-considered. 1

7 1.5 Limits of Authority The TMU is a partnership formed by a Memorandum of Understanding. As such the RCAs forming the partnership are not obligated or bound by TMU decisions nor does the TMU have the authority to enforce its requirements. As a TMU Traffic Signal Engineer undertaking a Traffic Signal Design Review, comments are not to make recommendations regarding alternative design options. Review comments will identify areas of concern and ask the designer to consider an alternative option suggested by the TSE, not recommended by the TSE. If the TSE identifies a serious safety concern regarding a design where the designer has gone against best practice or standards, the TSE can suggest that the design be reconsidered but must not provide a recommended solution. 2

8 2. Design Review Process 2.1 Requests for Service Typically a request for service (RFS) for the TMU to undertake a design review will come via the RCA from the RCA Joint Technical Group (JTG) representative to the TMU Technical Services Manager. The RCA will pass through a set of drawings for an intersection design requesting the design be reviewed against the TMU Traffic Signals Design Guidelines and other relevant documents. Refer to Appendix A for a flow chart outlining the RCA Request for Service Timeframes and Information Requirements. 2.2 Design Review Tracking For all design review requests received, these are to be recorded in the TMU database for tracking from receipt to delivery. 2.3 Information Requirements In order to undertake a thorough and comprehensive traffic signal design review, the TMU has requested that the RCA provides a complete set of drawings along with any other relevant information i.e. modelling report, safety audit, design report or memorandum explaining the intended operation of the traffic signals, design constraints, reasons for any design decisions etc. These sources of information assist with providing a more thorough, comprehensive and useful design review. Often minimal information is received. Should an inadequate level of information be provided to undertake the review satisfactorily, the TSE is to request additional information from the designer via the RCA, not directly to the designer. Refer to Appendix A for a flow chart outlining the RCA Request for Service Timeframes and Information Requirements. 2.4 Response Timeframes The standard response time (to the RCA), is within 5 working days of receipt of the RFS and appropriate information. However, the size and complexity of the design will dictate how quickly a review can be completed. If a significantly large design is received for review, the Client should be contacted on receipt of the design review if the TMU are unlikely to be able to complete the review with the 5 working days and advise of the estimated response time. Trying to complete large complex reviews in a short time period increases the risk of missing important issues. Refer to Appendix A for a flow chart outlining the RCA Request for Service Timeframes and Information Requirements. 3

9 2.5 Design Review Response Form Once a design review is complete, all design review comments are to be recorded and numbered consecutively for easy reference and included in the standard TMU Design Review Response Form Coversheet (See Appendix B for a sample coversheet response form). A list of typical issues and areas to be considered is included in Appendix C. The design review list is a prompt intended to assist and remind reviewers of areas to consider. Not all items may be relevant in the design and use of the list is not to replace thorough and complete consideration of issues. 2.6 Design Review Check For all Traffic Signal Design Reviews, the completed design review form is to be submitted to another TMU TSE for peer review, checking and sign-off prior to being released back to the RCA. The sign-off section is located at the bottom of the design review response form in Appendix B. 2.7 Communication All correspondence regarding the design review is to be directed through the relevant RCA contact (JTG representative). The TMU TSE does not communicate direct with the designer; all correspondence from the TMU is through the TMU Technical Services Manager to the RCA. The RCA then communicates with the Designer for further information. Refer to Figure 1 below outlining the communications structure: Traffic Management Unit Road Controlling Authority (RCA) Designer Figure 1: Communication Lines for Traffic Signals Design Reviews Appendix D Figure 2 contains a more detailed communications flow chart further to Figure 1 above. 4

10 3. Reviewing a Traffic Signals Design The following sections outline (but are not limited to); some of the typical areas where issues may arise that should be considered when undertaking a Traffic Signal Design Review. While standards and guidelines should be referred to when undertaking a review, best practice, experience and good engineering judgement should also be used. 3.1 Design Review Comments As outlined in Section 1.5, design review comments are to identify the issues and limit suggestions to pointing the designer in the direction of possible solutions for consideration. The TMU does not have the authority to tell a designer what they must do i.e. if an issue is identified, the comment should point out the issue and suggest a solution where relevant not tell the designer how to remedy it. 3.2 General Comments Under the general comments section, note all general issues identified that are not specific for example: No tracking drawings provided; Appropriateness of tracking; No street names on the drawing; Drawing errors such as false or missing references; Overhead power cables; Vegetation interfering with the traffic signals. 3.3 Geometrics and Layout Any comments regarding issues relating to geometrics and layout, for example: Road marking issues; Lane allocation issues that might affect efficiency or cause confusion; Issues relating to dimensions e.g. lane widths. 3.4 Operation Any comments regarding issues relating to the proposed operation, for example: Signal group, detector or pole numbering does not follow TMU standards; Phasing notes to explain any special operation required for software generation i.e. pedestrian protection requirements, special logic, phase sequence, special purpose timers, filtering requirements, movement overlaps etc; Inefficient phasing or unsafe phase sequence. 5

11 3.5 Pole and Lantern Layout Any comments regarding issues relating to pole and lantern layout, for example: Pole positions do not conform to standards e.g. primary pole position; Insufficient number of or no displays for a signal group; Visibility of lanterns; Confusing lantern arrangements or alignment; Information regarding pole and lantern type e.g. JUMA, JUSP, LED, lantern size etc; Use of open / closed visors, need for extra long visors; Use of mast arms and overhead displays. 3.6 Controller, Cabling, Ducting and Chambers Any comments regarding issues relating to the controller, cabling, ducting and chambers, for example: Inappropriate, unsafe or inaccessible controller location; Controller specification e.g. TSC4 compliant; Cabling layout and number of cable runs; Ducting layout, size and number of ducting runs; Insufficient or over-use of chambers; Inappropriate, unsafe or inaccessible chamber locations; Need for extra chamber next to controller supplied by two ducts; Kerbside junction boxes position. 3.7 Detectors Any comments regarding issues relating to detectors, for example: Missing detectors; Detector positioning; Detector use e.g. departure loops, queue loops, count loops; Presence timer requirements; Cycle loops; Bus loops. 6

12 3.8 Pedestrian Facilities Any comments regarding issues relating to the pedestrian facilities, for example: Inappropriate, unsafe or inaccessible pram ramp locations; Missing or incorrect layout of tactile paving; Pedestrian crossings conflicting with vehicle movements, especially right turn filtering; Crosswalk widths and lengths; Accessibility of pedestrian bush buttons; Use of or need for in ground pedestrian detectors; Compliance with RTS Cyclist Facilities Any comments regarding issues relating to cyclist facilities, for example: Inappropriate, unsafe or inaccessible cycle box locations; Cycle lane dimensions i.e. widths; Obstacles along a cycle lane e.g. cesspits; Cycle detection e.g. cycle loops and/or push buttons Street Lighting Any comments regarding issues relating to street lighting, for example: Street light pole positions; Lack of or excessive street lighting; Use of joint use poles (JUSPs) and joint use mastarms (JUMAs) Signs Any comments regarding issues relating to signs, for example: Inappropriate, unsafe, confusing or unreadable sign locations e.g. blocking signal displays; Missing signs e.g. RG-27 Turning Traffic Give Way to Pedestrians Bus Facilities Any comments regarding issues relating to bus facilities, for example: Bus lanes; Bus displays, and operation within the traffic signal software; Bus stop locations. 7

13 Appendix A Request for Service Flow Chart

14

15 Appendix B Design Review Form Coversheet

16 Design Review Authority: Client Contact: Date Received: Date: Site Name: Site ID No: Client Reference: Designer: Drawings Received: Documents Received: Comments: Reviewed by: Checked by: TMU Reference: Background: A traffic signal design review has been undertaken as requested by RCA... Drawings and information provided to the TMU (as listed), were reviewed against the latest version of the TMU Traffic Signals Design Guidelines. Review Comments: The points noted on the following pages were identified for consideration. All correspondence regarding this review is to be directed through RCA Contact.. Signed: _ / / Reviewer Signed: _ / / Checker

17 Design Review General Comments: 1. Design Comments: Geometrics and Layout 2. Operation 3. Pole and Lantern Layout 4. Controller, Cabling, Ducting and Chambers 5. Detectors 6. Pedestrian Facilities 7. Cyclist Facilities 8. Street Lighting 9. Signs 10. Bus Facilities 11.

18 Appendix C Design Review Prompt (Issues for Consideration)

19 Item Notes General Have tracking drawings been provided and is the tracking appropriate? Have the Street names been shown on the drawing? Are there any drawing errors such as false or missing references? Are there any services likely to be affected by the traffic signal installation? E.g. Over head power cables Is there any vegetation that is likely to impact on the operation of the traffic signals or restrict visibility? Geometrics and Layout Is the road marking complete and meet standards? Are all relevant dimensions provided and to standards? Are there any lane allocation issues that might affect the safety or efficiency of the intersection? Will any curves in the vertical or horizontal alignment restrict visibility of the lanterns? Operation Are signal group, detector and pole numbers correct? Does the phasing suit the intersection requirements? Are all relevant phasing notes provided? Is the proposed phasing safe and efficient? Have any special logic requirements been explained?

20 Pole and Lantern Layout Are pole positions to standard and safe? Are there a sufficient number of signal displays to operate the intersection safely? Are there any visibility issues relating to lantern positions? Is the lantern layout suitable and not confusing? Is all relevant pole information provided? i.e. pole type Do all lanterns have the appropriate visors shown? Do all the lantern displays match the signal groups? Have any mast arms and over head displays been used appropriately and to standards? Controller, Cabling Ducting and Chambers Is the proposed controller to standards and the location appropriate? Is the cable layout correct and to standards? Is the ducting layout correct and to standards with the correct ducting sizes used and labelled? Are there a sufficient number of chambers and an extra chamber for the controller? Are the proposed chamber locations safe and accessible? Are all kerbside junction boxes positioned correctly?

21 Detectors Are all necessary detectors included and numbered? Are all detectors positioned correctly? Have any special detector requirements been mentioned? E.g. presence timers, queue loops. Are any bus and/or cycle loops positioned correctly? Pedestrian Facilities Are all proposed pram ramps positioned in a safe and appropriate location? Have all required tactile pavers been shown to standards? Are all pedestrian crosswalk widths to standard and no unnecessarily long crossings? Are all pedestrian push buttons easily accessible? Cyclist Facilities Are any cycle boxes provided to standards? Are all proposed cycle facilities dimensions to standards? E.g. cycle lane widths. Are there any obstacles in the cycle lane? E.g. cesspits. Street Lighting Has a street lighting design been completed? Have any joint use poles (JUSPs and JUMAs) been noted in the drawings?

22 Signs Are all proposed signs in a safe, appropriate and readable position for vehicles and pedestrians? Are any of the proposed signs likely to restrict visibility to the lanterns? Are all required signs provided? Bus Facilities Are any proposed bus facilities to standards? Has the operation of any bus priority requirements in the software been explained? Are any proposed bus stops in safe, accessible and appropriate locations?

23 Appendix D Communications Flow Chart

24 Designer submits design to RCA RCA (JTG Member) submits request to TMU Technical Services Manager TMU Technical Services Manager assigns review to TSE TSE reviews design and prepares design review form TSE submits design review form for peer review Peer review and amendments Quality assurance and final sign-off TMU Technical Services Manager submits design review to RCA (JTG Member) Figure 2: Communications Flow Chart