Supplementary Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Designer's Response

Presented to: 

M1 Junction 19 Improvement 

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit 

Designer’s Response / 

Exceptions Report 

Reference No.: 

B0531000/OD/164 

February 2010 

Revision 1 

Submitted by: 

Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd 

1 City Walk, 

Leeds, 

LS11 9DX


Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Designer’s 

Response / Exceptions Report 

……………………………………………………………………. Jacobs Project Manager 

Issue History: 

Date Revision Status Comments 

July 2009 0 Draft 

February 2010 1 Final 

This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional 

capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). 

Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this 

document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this 

document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. 

Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the 

document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the 

information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction 

practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the 

documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other 

than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs 

will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice 

provided in this document. 

This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party 

may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, 

Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and 

(b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever 

against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no 

responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of 

this document to the third party. 

B0531000/OD/164 February 2010


Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Designer’s Response / 


CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

2 ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 3 

2.1 General.........................................................................................................................3 

2.2 Junctions ......................................................................................................................8 

2.3 Non Motorised User Provision....................................................................................10 

2.4 Road Signs, Carriageway Marking and Lighting ........................................................11 

3 CONCLUSION 17 

Rev.:1 

i Issued: February 2010




PAGE NOT USED 

Rev.:1 

ii Issued: February 2010




1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1.1 This report is the Designer’s Response and Exceptions Report resulting from the 

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit for the M1 Junction 19 Improvement Scheme carried out 

by Jacobs on the Preferred Route. 

1.1.2 The findings of the Road Safety Audit are detailed within the report entitled “M1 

Junction 19 Improvement Road Safety Audit Stage 1 June 2009, Original”. 

1.1.3 The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit review was carried out by: 

• John Barrell, BSC, CEng, MICE, FIHT, MSoRSA, MIRSO 

• Colin Wright, MSc, MEng, AMIHT 

• Vincent Holden, BA, MIHT, MILT 

• Laura Tweddle, MEng, GMICE, MIHT 

1.1.4 For details of the drawings and documents examined as part of the Audit, refer to the 

Stage 1 Audit Report - Paragraph 1.8. 

1.1.5 The findings and recommendations of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit are summarised 

together with the Designer’s responses, which reflect the scheme design at July 

2009. 

1.1.6 Section 3 of this report concludes the Designer’s findings. 

Rev.:1 

1 Issued: February 2010




PAGE NOT USED 

Rev.:1 





2 ITEMS RAISED FROM THIS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 

2.1 GENERAL 

Problem 1 - Rationale of emergency / maintenance access routes 

At M1 / M6 / A14 interchange 

Problem 

There are four emergency / maintenance 

access routes proposed from the local 

road network to the M1, M6 and A14. 

These include access points between 

structures S/7 and S/8 and on the M1 – 

A14 Eastbound Link at the end of a 

downhill section. The access points should 

be located where there is adequate 

visibility for vehicles using them to access 

and egress safely. In addition the routes 

should be signed and gated so they are 

not used as short cuts for local vehicles to 

access the trunk road network. This is 

made more likely by removal of access 

from local roads to the trunk roads in this 

new design. 

Recommendation 

Review provision of emergency / 

maintenance access routes to ensure they 

all are necessary, provide adequate 

visibility and are not used by local vehicles 

as a short cut to access M1, M6 and A14. 

Designer’s Response 

All of the access points to/from the emergency/maintenance routes are to be gated (on 

the local road side) and locked to prevent inappropriate use by local traffic (vehicles, 

pedestrians, animals, etc). The provision of CCTV to cover all access points is currently 

under consideration as part of the Motorway Communications design. 

The preliminary design of the junctions between the emergency / maintenance access 

and the local road network are designed to be perceived as field accesses and thus 

inconspicuous and in keeping with the rural environment. 

For all accesses a minimum of 120m stopping sight distance (one step below the 

desirable minimum of 160m for an 85kph design speed) would be provided on the Major 

Road. 

For the three accesses on the south side of the Local Link Road, standard visibility of 

160m for the Major Road design speed of 85kph would be provided from a point a 

minimum of 2m back from the give way line in accordance with TD 41/95, Para. 2.21 for 

a lightly used access with particularly difficult site conditions. 

For the access on the north side of the Local Link Road and the access to the west of 

Swinford Road visibility of 90m (2 step reduction) would be provided from a point a 

minimum of 2m back from the give way line, with visibility along the Major Road of 120m 

(1 step reduction) being provided in the vicinity of the access. 

Due to the low anticipated usage (only one vehicle is expected to join/leave the Major 

Road at one time) and the requirements TD41/95 being specific to access to / from high 

standard Trunk Roads, the proposals discussed above are considered acceptable. 

Rev.:1 





Exception 

No exception is sought at this stage; although an exception may be sought at the next 

stage of design development for reduced visibility should the issue be raised in 

subsequent Road Safety Audits. 

Problem 2 - Additional vehicles using this route 

A426 between M1 J20 and M6 J1 

Problem 

The proposed junction layout removes the 

ability for vehicles to travel from M1 

Southbound to M6 Westbound and from 

M6 Eastbound to M1 Northbound. Any 

vehicles that previously made either of 

these movements will now have to use the 

A426. The auditor is unsure whether the 

capacity of this route and junctions will be 

suitable for the additional vehicles. 


Provide assessment of impact of scheme 

on A426. 


The Preferred Route has been developed based on traffic forecasting. This identified 

that existing demand and forecast flows for the M6 westbound to M1 northbound and M1 

southbound to M6 westbound movements are currently and forecast to be very low. The 

alternative route for these movements using the strategic road network is the M69 and 

the A426. 

A comparison of the forecast traffic flows on the A426 in the do-minimum scenario (no 

junction improvement) and the do-something scenario (following improvement to the 

junction) in both the opening year (2014) and the design year (2029) indicate a small 

reduction in traffic along the A426. This is considered to be due to traffic currently 

bypassing M1 Junction 19, transferring to the motorway network following removal of the 

congestion and delay currently encountered at M1 Junction 19. 

Exception 

No exception required. 

Rev.:1 





Problem 3 - Potential ponding 

Approach to junction of Swinford Road and Local Link Road 

Problem 

The approach to the junction on Swinford 

Road goes downhill to go underneath M1 – 

M6 Northbound, M6 – A14 and M6 – M1 

Southbound Links, before going uphill to 

the T junction. The lowest point is under 

S/9 M6 – A1 Link and thus there is 

potential for ponding to occur at this 

location. Flooding in this location could 

lead to loss of control of vehicles and 

potential damage to structures if vehicles 

leave the carriageway. 


Ensure adequate drainage facilities are 

provided on Swinford Road. 


Initial drainage proposals reported in the “Contractors Proposals for Drainage” propose a 

gravity drainage network (no pumping station) for the trapped cutting. 

At detailed design, the pipe network and gully spacing will be designed in accordance 

with the requirements of HD33/06 which requires the drainage system to accommodate 

a larger storm event for trapped cuttings. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 4 - Location of emergency maintenance access 

M1 – A14 Eastbound Link 

Problem 

The emergency maintenance access point 

is located at the end of a downhill gradient 

section of the M1 – A14 Eastbound Link. 

Emergency vehicles may encounter 

vehicles at high speeds given the downhill 

gradient, and whose drivers are not 

expecting vehicles to be exiting from this 

location. 


If this location is to be retained ensure 

adequate visibility of emergency access 

point for vehicles on M1 – A14 Eastbound 

Link. 


The emergency maintenance access point has been designed to include diverge and 

merge tapers to the back of the 3.3m hardshoulder in order that vehicle can accelerate / 

decelerate to an appropriate speed prior to joining / leaving the hardshoulder. 

At this stage it is anticipated that all vehicles using the facility would be entering or 

exiting the motorway network under flashing lights in order increase awareness. 

Vehicles travelling in lane 1 of the M1 – A14 Eastbound Link would have a Stopping 

Sight Distance of at least 160m for obstructions within lanes 1 and 2, which is 

appropriate for the design speed of 85kph (in accordance with the requirements of 

TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions). 

Consideration will be given the provision of an advisory 50mph or 60mph speed limit and 

additional traffic signs at the next stage of design development. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 5 - Capacity reduction of M1 – M6 Northbound Link. 

M1 – M6 Northbound Link. 

Problem 

The proposed modifications to the junction 

have reduced the number of lanes on the 

M1 – M6 Northbound Link from 3 lanes to 

2 lanes. Diverge arrangements remain 

similar on the M1 with no lane drop. The 

auditor is concerned that a reduction in the 

number of lanes on the M1 – M6 

Northbound Link could lead to capacity 

issues. 


Provide an assessment of junction 

operation to address link capacity issues. 


Traffic surveys and traffic forecasting indicates that the existing, opening year and 

design year (15 years after opening) traffic flows do / will not require the provision of 3 

lanes on this link. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





2.2 JUNCTIONS 

Problem 6 - Forward visibility on Shawell Lane approach 

Junction of Shawell Lane and Local Link Road 

Problem 

The approach to the junction on Shawell 

Lane goes under the mainline M6 and then 

turns sharply to the right to provide a T 

junction arrangement with the Link Road. 

Visibility of this bend will be impaired by 

the underpass and alignment of the link 

road. This could result in vehicles 

attempting to go straight on instead of 

turning right. 


Provide signage before the underpass 

giving warning of the approaching right 

hand bend and junction. Provide deflection 

and landscaping at the bend so that 

forward visibility of the link road alignment 

is reduced and vehicles naturally turn right. 


At the detailed design stage, the traffic signs and road markings design will be 

developed to include appropriate signage prior to the underpass to give warning of 

approaching right hand bend and junction. Deflection at the bend will also be provided 

through either landscape mounding and planting or appropriate traffic signs. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 7 - Visibility of westbound vehicles on Local Link Road 

Junction of Local Link Road and Swinford Road 

Problem 

Vehicles travelling west on the Local Link 

Road on the approach to Swinford Road 

travel on an uphill gradient under 

structures S/8, S/7 and S/2 before the road 

goes downhill (chainage 1950) to the 

junction (chainage 1750). Vehicles exiting 

Swinford Road with have their visibility to 

the right reduced by this crest and the 

tunnel effect that the three structures in 

close proximity provides. 


Consider levelling out the vertical profile on 

the Local Link Road to improve visibility at 

the Swinford Road junction. 


Stopping sight visibility of at least 160m has been provided to / from the junction based 

on a design speed of 85kph which is considered appropriate for a rural road and in 

keeping with the surround rural lanes. 

It should be noted that the Local Link Road has been designed as a non-overtaking 

section of road to the east of its junction with Swinford Road. Increasing visibility would 

encourage vehicles to travel at higher speeds and may result in inappropriate overtaking 

manoeuvres. 

Exception 

The Designer requests an exception as increasing visibility at this junction would 

encourage vehicle to travel at higher speeds. 

Rev.:1 





2.3 NON MOTORISED USER PROVISION 

Problem 8 - Provision for non motorised users 

Local road network from Swinford Road to Local Link Road to Rugby Road 

Problem 

The provision for non motorised users has 

not been made clear to the auditors. There 

is existing provision from Swinford Road to 

Rugby Road. The new layout must make 

provision for non motorised users and 

should be easily understood by them. 


Provide details of non motorised user 

provision to the audit team. 


The following facilities for non motorised users are proposed within the limits of the local 

road network: 

Cyclists 

Provision for cyclists as agreed with the Cyclist Touring Club during recent consultations: 

1) Cyclists to use the carriageways of the proposed local roads 

Equestrians 

Provision for horse riders agreed with the British Horse Society at recent consultations: 

1) Minimum facilities to be provided within the limits of the local road construction 

works - horses to use grassed verge with a minimum width of 2.0m if no footway 

to be provided or 4.0m verge including a 1.5m footway at the back of the verge 

Pedestrians 

Provision for pedestrians agreed with the Ramblers Association and local Parish 

Councils at recent consultations: 

1) Utility link between Swinford and Catthorpe - 1.5m footway from Swinford village 

to the limit of the local road improvement works on Swinford Road, reducing to 

1.2m up to Catthorpe village 

2) Recreational link between the utility link and Bridleway X14 – 3.0m grassed 

verge to allow combined use by pedestrians and equestrians in the northern 

verge of the Local Link Road 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





2.4 ROAD SIGNS, CARRIAGEWAY MARKING AND LIGHTING 

Problem 9 - Change of road layout, provision of signage and link capacity 

M6 Eastbound approach to junction with M1 and A14 

Problem 

The current junction layout is such that 

vehicles wishing to use M1 Southbound 

use the two right hand lanes. The new 

layout is the opposite where vehicles 

wishing to use M1 Southbound use the left 

hand lanes. The proposed gantry signage 

ADS1, ADS2, and ADS3 indicates that to 

use M1 Southbound the left hand lane 

must be used. This does not match TT1 

and TT2 which show that the M1 

Southbound can be reached from the 

middle lane as well. Given that the current 

provision for this movement is that two 

dedicated lanes becoming three on the M6 

– M1 Southbound Link, the auditor is 

concerned that there may be a capacity 

issue with the current layout which is one 

dedicated lane and a shared lane on the 

M6 becoming two on the M6 – M1 

Southbound Link. 


For this change in layout to work without 

excessive late lane changes, the road 

markings and signage must be easily 

understood. Ensure that signage clearly 

indicates that M1 Southbound can be 

reached from the middle lane and provide 

lane destination markings on the road 

surface. An assessment of junction 

capacity will also be necessary. 


The proposed Type D (Option 1) Ghost Island diverge for Lane Drop with three lanes 

upstream of the diverge, two lanes on the connector road and two lanes downstream of 

the diverge has been included in the design following a review of the forecast traffic 

flows for both the opening year (2014) and the design year (2029) to meet the 

requirements of TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. 

At the next stage of design development, the traffic signs and road marking design will 

be reviewed to ensure that signage clearly indicates that M1 southbound can be reached 

from the middle lane and provide lane destination markings on the road surface. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 10 - Spacing of signs on gantry 

Junction of M6 – A14 and M1 Southbound 

Problem 

At the nosing of the M1 Southbound 

diverge from the M6 – A14, gantry sign 

RC1 is provided. The sign faces do not 

appear to span the lanes correctly and 

could lead to driver confusion and unsafe 

lane movements. 


Ensure RC1 spans lanes correctly. 



be reviewed to ensure that sign face RC1 correctly spans lanes. 

Exception 


Problem 11 - Location of sign MIS3A 

M1 – M6 Northbound Link 

Problem 

This sign indicates two additional lanes of 

traffic joining from the right. At its location 

there is hatching and a merging lane to the 

right before the two mainline traffic lanes. 

This could cause driver confusion. 


Move MIS3A further down the slip road or 

replace with another MIS3. 



be reviewed to consider moving traffic sign MIS3A down the slip road or replacing it with 

another MIS3 traffic sign. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 12 - Speed enforcement on these links 

Entry to M6 – M1 Southbound Link, M1 – M6 Northbound Link, M1 – A14 

Eastbound Link and A14 – M1 Northbound Link 

Problem 

These links have a design speed of 85kph 

and as such drivers entering onto these 

links must be made aware of the reduced 

speed limit and enforcement may be 

necessary. 


Provide speed limit signs on entry to all of 

these links and provide details of how the 

speed limit will be enforced. 


The four interchange links proposed as part of the Preferred Route and presented on the 

drawings reviewed by the Road Safety Audit team have been designed in accordance 

with the requirements of TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. The design 

speed of 85kph is in accordance with the requirements of Table 4/1 of TD22 for an 

interchange link between rural mainlines with a design speed of 120kph. 

A minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) of 160m is proposed between the back of 

diverge layout nose and the back of the merge layout nose. Full mainline SSD of 295m 

is proposed over the full length of the merge and diverge layouts in accordance with the 

requirements of TD 9 (Highway Link Design) and TD 22. 

However, should the issue continue to be raised in subsequent Road Safety Audits 

consideration could be given to the provision of an advisory 50mph or 60mph speed limit 

and additional traffic signs. 

Exception 

The Designer requests an exception as provision of speed limits on these four 

interchange links is not considered necessary and would not be in keeping with current 

practise at other similar locations on the motorway and trunk road network. 

Rev.:1 





Problem 13 - Sign face MIS6 

A14 – M1 Northbound Link. 

Problem 

MIS6 is shown in two locations on the A14 

– M1 Northbound Link. However the sign 

face detail for this sign is not included in 

Drawing No. W/B0531000/B/1200/013. 


Provide details of sign face MIS6. 



be amended to remove sign face MIS6 as no sign is required at these locations. 

Exception 


Problem 14 - Location of sign DS2 

Junction of A14 – M6 and M1 Northbound 

Problem 

At the nosing of the M1 Northbound 

diverge from the A14 – M6 sign DS2 

indicates the route to M1 Northbound. The 

location of this sign could obscure the view 

of the offside MS1A motorway regulations 

in force sign. 


Ensure DS2 does not obscure MS1A. 



be amended to ensure that traffic sign DS2 does not obscure traffic sign MS1A. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





Problem 15 - Signage for non motorway traffic 

Junction of A14 and A5199 

Problem 

The new junction layout removes any 

access to the local road network from the 

A14. Therefore under this layout non 

motorway traffic must leave the A14 at the 

junction with the A5199 approximately 6 

miles east. 


Provide details of signage for non 

motorway traffic using the A14. 



be amended to include details of signage for non motorway traffic using the A14 to exit 

at its junction with the A5199. 

Exception 


Problem 16 - Sign face MIS5 

M1 – A14 Eastbound Link 

Problem 

MIS5 is repeated at two locations on the 

M1 – A14 Eastbound Link. This sign shows 

a lane reduction from 4 lanes to 3 to 

indicate the slip lane merging into the 

mainline traffic. This sign should show 3 

lanes becoming 2 and should also be on a 

green background rather than blue to 

reflect the end of motorway. 


Amend sign MIS5. 



be amended to introduce additional traffic signs MIS6 to show 3 lanes becoming 2 using 

a green background. 

Exception 


Rev.:1 





PAGE NOT USED 

Rev.:1 





3 CONCLUSION 

3.1.1 The Designer has reviewed the issues raised by the Audit Team during this Stage 1 

Road Safety Audit. 

3.1.2 The Designer has considered all of the Auditor’s recommendation and has provided 

his response in Section 2 of this report. 

3.1.3 Two exceptions are sought as this stage for Problems 7 and 12, the justification for 

which is summarised below: 

• The Designer considers amending the design to increase visibility at the junction 

of the Local Link Road and Swinford Road would encourage vehicles to travel at 

higher speeds and could result in inappropriate overtaking in the vicinity of the 

junction 

• The Designer considers the introduction of a mandatory speed limit on the four 

interchange links is inappropriate. The design has been developed in 

accordance with the requirements of current design standards and would not be 

in keeping with current practise at other similar locations on the motorway and 

trunk road network 

3.1.4 Many of the problems raised will require amendments to the design prior to a Stage 2 

Road Safety Audit which may not resolve all the concerns of the Audit Team. It is 

considered prudent for the Highways Agency to discuss the following issue with the 

Audit Team prior to publication of Draft Orders: 

• The introduction of an advisory speed limit of 50 or 60mph on the four 

interchange links, denoted by traffic signs to TSRGD 2002 (Traffic Signs and 

General Directions) diagram 513 (Maximum speed in miles per hour advised at a 

bend or other hazard) in combination with traffic signs to diagram 512 (Bend 

ahead). 

Rev.:1

Supplementary Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Designer's Response

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?