Road Safety Audit Recommendations: Finding Tracking Form

Development of Internal Roads, Surface

Project: Parking and Public Realm for Sectors:E7, Document Number:
E10 & E11
Project Number: Road Safety Audit Stage: Stage 1 (Interim Preliminary Design)

Contract Number: 350839 Client: ADM

Client Project Manager: Eng. Mohammad Motaa Chokfeh Designer: TRIP

ADM (Eng.Nandeesh R.Kestur)& PARSONS

Road safety Auditors:
Abu Dhabi (Eng.Omar Hamush)

Audit Team Findings Designer Responses Audit Team Replies Road Authority Disposition
Response (to
recommendation
) Agree with the
Identified Risk Response Reply
Audit Team Mitigating Recommendation Comment Comment and Status Hazard as Comment
(of a casualty) (to risk) (to designer)
identified

Lack of Pedestrian Walkway Agree Agree The minimum clear zone for pedestrian provided is 1.8m. Signs and Agree Closed. OK
other road furniture are provided in a fashion to keep minimum of 1.8m
Location: R/A No. 1 & 2 at the Existing Boundary Wall. STA. 0+615, 2+010, 2+232 clear zone for pedestrian all along the project scheme.
& 2+253 Ensure that a minimum of 1.8 mtrs of CLEAR
unobstructed Sidewalks is available on both sides of
To be implemented and show in the ammended layouts
1 Summary: Risk of Pedestrian Crashes. the Carraigeway for Pedestrian Movements at Agreed
issued.
Minimum;Walk Increase the sidewalk by relocate the
The space width between the kerb and existing boundary wall is small which may exisitng boundary wall at mentioned locations.
encourage the pedestrian to Walk on the carraigeway which may lead to a Vehicle to
pedestrian type of Crashes.

Insufficiant Pedestrian Access Agree Agree The minimum clear zone for pedestrian provided is 1.8m. Signs and Agree Closed. OK
other road furniture are provided in a fashion to keep minimum of 1.8m
Location: R/A No. 1 Access to new developement clear zone for pedestrian all along the project scheme.
Ensure that a minimum of 1.8 mtrs of CLEAR
unobstructed Sidewalks is available on both sides of
Summary: Risk of Pedestrian Crashes. To be implemented and show in the ammended layouts
2 the Carraigeway for Pedestrian Movements at Agreed
issued.
Minimum;Walk Increase the sidewalk by relocate the
The space width between the kerb and existing boundary wall is insufficaint which
exisitng boundary wall at mentioned locations.
may encourage the pedestrian to use the asphalt which may lead to car crashes into
pedestrian

At the entry of Round about #1 (3+040)the Pedestrian Zebra crossing is on a Single Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Pedestrian crossing at single carriageway is provided along with yield Disagree Provide dropped kerbs only. Do not
Carraigeway; The marking on the Road indicates that RoW is for Pedestrians; this lines as per ADM standards. This zebra crossing marking is important to mark "zebra crossings unless there is
would provide a false sense of security for pedestrians to cross and may lead to V2P Remove all Zebra;Yield Line and Signs at the convey the message to the driver and alert him of the possibility of This is supposed to be a Low Speed Enviornment; any Zebra an intention to give pedestrain priuority
3 type of Crashes; location and let the Pedestrians cross at the pedestrian crossing. Removing zebra marking will not add any safety crossing would give a false sense of Security and may lead to Agreed ove traffic and to enforce it.
carraigeway at the safe opportunity to do so. value for pedestrian crossing V2P Crashes; Dropped Kerbs would suffice.

At the Parking in the Mosque Area; There apperars to be no Dropped Kerb to Agree Agree Noted. Drop kerb provided Agree Closed. OK
provide connectivity between Parking bays across the drive-way; This may result in
inconvinience to mobility
Propose Dropped Kerbs at the 2 ends of the Parking To be implemented and show in the ammended layouts
4 Agreed
Area for seamless connectivity issued.

At the Exit of Plot C99 (Exit from Mosque Parking;4+020); similar Zebra crossing Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Pedestrian crossing at single carriageway is provided along with yield Disagree Provide dropped kerbs only. Do not
exists with a Yield line and Signage;(Ref:Comment#3) lines as per ADM standards. This zebra crossing marking is important to mark "zebra crossings unless there is
Remove all Zebra;Yield Line and Signs at the convey the message to the driver and alert him of the possibility of an intention to give pedestrain priuority
5 location and let the Pedestrians cross at the Just Dropped Kerbs would suffice Agreed
pedestrian crossing. Removing zebra marking will not add any safety ove traffic and to enforce it.
carraigeway at the safe opportunity to do so. value for pedestrian crossing

At the exit of the Parking of Mosque there is no sign that indicates STOP Condition Add STOP sign/STOP line No Entry sign on the Agree Agree Yield line will be replaced with stop line and sign. No Entry sing will be Agree Closed. OK
6 and no entry and travel in opposing direction; same Pole on the right side (in lieu of the proposed added as on parking exit. Please note yield sign is provided for through Double Signs of STOP and No Entry to be ammended Agreed
Yield sign) traffic.
At 2+220; Similar Zebra crossing is proposed at the 2x2 ;this being uncontrolled Remove all Zebra;Yield Line and Signs at the Agree Do Not Agree Refer to reply to comment 3. Bollards will be added at depressed median Disagree Closed. OK
could lead to pedestrian on the zebra whilst an errant vehicle not yielding to them; location and let the Pedestrians cross at the location to avoid usage by motorised vehicles.
carraigeway at the safe opportunity to do so. The
7 No Zebra crossing; Just Dropped Kerbs and Bollard Agreed
Median to have a at Grade crossing with a minimum
of 3 mtrs and Bollard to avoid usage by motorised
vehicles.
At 2+120; A Crossing is proposed; this looks to be connected to a RIRO with limited Do Not Agree Do Not Agree The area provided near hotel entrance at Ch:2+120 is a Mushtarak area Disagree Closed. OK
storage or width; the widths would not accommodate safe Pedestrian Refuge; This where NMU have the priority.
Increase Storage and remove the Zebra crossing on the main
could cause Pedestians being exposed to Vehicular movement at RIRO with V2P Increase the Storage at the location to be minimum
8 line; connectivity on the entrabce and exit side to be Agreed
conflicts of 2 mtrs else; relocate the crossing;
improved also.

At 2+120; Similar Zebra crossing is proposed at the 2x2 ;this being uncontrolled Remove all Zebra;Yield Line and Signs at the Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Refer to reply to comment 3. Disagree Closed. OK
could lead to pedestrian on the zebra whilst an errant vehicle not yielding to them; location and let the Pedestrians cross at the
carraigeway at the safe opportunity to do so. ALSO
9 Refer to comments of #3 Agreed
propose Pedestrian connectivity across the RIRO at
the location. Further the Signs of #326 would be
accomodated at the Nose; The Nose would need to
At 2+020 and 0+600; Zebra crossings on 2x2 ;Similar Zebra crossing is proposed at Remove all Zebra;Yield Line and Signs at the Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Refer to reply to comment 3. Disagree Closed. OK
10 the 2x2 ;this being uncontrolled could lead to pedestrian on the zebra whilst an location and let the Pedestrians cross at the Refer to comments of #3 Agreed
errant vehicle not yielding to them; carraigeway at the safe opportunity to do so.
At the 2nd RaB(2+000); There appears to be no crossing for Pedestrians on the 3rd leg; At the 2nd RaB; Dropped Kerbs to be provided at the Do Not Agree Do Not Agree This area is located inside the private developer boundary. Pedestrian Disagree Closed. OK
similiarly there is no minimum Pedestrian walk area at the 2 corners; this may force 3rd Leg of the RaB (Entrance to the can still cross from the otherside of the 3-leg R/A, where sufficient public
Development);Also minimum 1.8 mtrs pedestrian realm area provided. Proposed dropped Kerb connectivty with sufficient Vehicle
11 pedestrian to walk onto the carraigeway with a V2P collision probability Agreed
Side walk to be proposed. Storage of 1 Car length;
 Audit Team Findings Designer Responses Audit Team Replies Road Authority Disposition
Response (to
recommendation
) Agree with the
Identified Risk Response Reply
Audit Team Mitigating Recommendation Comment Comment and Status Hazard as Comment
(of a casualty) (to risk) (to designer)
identified

At 0+580; The 2 Zebra crossing are located close to the entry from Dual; any vehicle Agree Agree The crossing provided already at 6m from carriageway as suggested Agree Closed. OK
yielding to Pedestrians may have their cars on the main line with a possibility of rear Relocate the Crossing atleast 6mtrs away from entry;
12 end type shunts; also as the entry in at bent sections the Pedestrians may not view Also remove all Zerba and system and just retain To be ammended in Final Drawings Agreed
oncoming cars as they would have their backs to oncoming Traffic Dropped Kerbs.

Further all along the Dual Road ;Zebra crossings are proposed at Entrance and Exits Do Not Agree Do Not Agree The zebra crossing marking is provided to ensure safe movement of Disagree Closed. OK
Remove all Zebra Crossing at the entrance and exits
on both sides of the carraigeway; As highlighted earlier all the crossings to have cyclists and pedestrians. We don't see any safety added value of
13 and all associated Yield signs and line (if any); All Refer to comments of #3 Agreed
RoW such that Pedestrians cross at safest Possible opportunity removing these zebra crossings.
the crossings to have appropriate Dropped Kerbs;
At 0+020; There is an connection from the Vehicles circulating around Plot C6 which Agree Agree The at grade crossing will be revised to speed table. Agree Closed. OK
connects to the main line as a stopped condition; There is a possibility of Vehicles Propose to have a Speed Table instead of the Zebra
14 Also Refresh STOP Line and Signage Agreed
not slowing down or Stopping at this junction and with a possible conflict with left crossing at this location;
turners from IP;
At 2+220;A cycle track starts along the Side walk which appears to be a shared Do Not Agree Do Not Agree The cyclists have to dismount at the end of dedicated and shared cycle Disagree Note: the proposed layout of cycle
space between cyclists and Pedestrians; along this cycle track there is a confusing track location. The traffic signs for same is provided. The dedicated tracks is very poor with almost no
on the sharing of space between the 2 NMU's; Towards the Layby the cyclists are cycle track is project requirement of DOT. continuity. The main affect of this "cycle
pushed inwards towards the wall and further down after the Taxi layby the cycle track track" provision is to reduce the quality
appears to be closer to the Kerb; The cycle track then just terminates only to re- of the footpaths.
appear at a small stretch before a Right-in; Further down the cycle track again It is fair to assumme their will be more
appears to terminate into a (BLUE) shared realm; with NMU's unable to intrepret this pedestrain demand compared to cycle
transitions and confusion there could be sufficient conflicts between Pedestrian and demand.
Cyclists and possibility of collisions;
PROVIDE SHARED PUBLIC REAL FOR
Propose a maximised NMU corridor without any CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS WITH
green surfacing or shared (blue) and let NMU's use NO SUBDIVISION THROUGHOUT
the facility safely without conflict;This would also THIS PROJECT. USE EXTRA
15 To be decided by Roads Authority Agreed
reduce all the extra signs clutter for Cyclists and AVAILABEL PUBLIC SPACE TO
Pedestrian (which is proposed on )desire lines of PROVIDE USABLE STREET
movement and reduce fixed object collisions FURNITURE SUCH AS PUBLIC
SEATING AND BICYCLE RACKS
BEHIND THE FOOTPATH.

At 0+020; The Pedestrian Realm is Shared for NMU's with dedicated lanes Propose a maximised NMU corridor without any Do Not Agree Do Not Agree see reply to comment 15. This is the maxiumum could be provided within Disagree See 15 above
allocated;Further down this seperation changes into a Public Realm; The Cyclists green surfacing or shared (blue) and let NMU's use the ROW constrain. Cycle track has been approved by DOT.
may not be able to use this dedicated lanes as a 2 way movement with conflict the facility safely without conflict;This would also
16 To be decided by Roads Authority Agreed
movements and a rare possibility of collisions and fall onto carraigeway; reduce all the extra signs clutter for Cyclists and
Pedestrian (which is proposed on )desire lines of
movement and reduce fixed object collisions
All Entry in RaB especially at 2x2 the signs to RaB are located on the right side only; Agree Agree Drawings will be updated to show yield sign on both sides at entry of Agree Closed. OK
this could block the Road user on the inner lane and he may not yield at the RaB Propose 2 signs of Yield and RaB at each entry to Roundabout.
17 with a possible collision in the circulatory lane within the RaB Drawings to be ammended Agreed
2x2 RaB;

All The Dual Roads don’t show the EDGE line marking which may confuse the Road Do Not Agree Do Not Agree There is no Edge marking for such Urban road as per USDM standards Disagree Urban areas (less than 60KmPH speed
users of the Kerb line and may occasionally climb or have the wheels mount the kerb and as per new Abu Dhabi Road Geometric Design Manual. limit and built up area.) do not need an
(especially on bends); The carraigeway to have EDGE line on both sides of edgeline. Kerbline is sufficient.
carraigeway and clear GORE area marking at all Agree with the
18 To be decided by Roads Authority
Nose'Hazard; The Road markings proposed to be designer.
shy of all kerbs

The Dual Road bends along the way and errant drivers may drive beyond the Do Not Agree Do Not Agree At dual road bends, the northbound traffic will be slowed down due to Agree This is a built up urban street. Likely to
proposed speed and not knowing the shape of the road drive onto the median; this roundabout, the southbound traffic will be slowed down due to maintain low speeds and so single post
may case v2v or v2P type collisions pedestrian crossing and yield sign. Chevron signs cannot be provided chevrons are not likely to be required as
due to narrow median. Please note this is low speed environment road they might be in a less developed area
with speed of 40kph. where speeds might be expected to be
higher and where the road definition
Propose few single pole chevrons at the bends to Agree with the
19 1 Single chevron may be proposed at bend sections may have less features.
enhance the road alignment; designer.

The layouts don’t show Signs #326 at the exits to RaB; Road users may not realise Install #326 at appropriate exits to RaB on Main Agree Agree Drawings will be updated to show 326 at roundabout locations. Agree Closed. OK
20 Drawings to be ammended Agreed
the hazard with a possibility of fixed object collisions lines.
At the proposed Traffic Junction the seperation between the through movement and Agree Agree Raised ceramic studs along with solid line is already provided in the Disagree Provide the sign as requested by the
left turners need to have more clear seperation to avoid last minute switchover back design. Due to narrow separation, sign #326 cannot be provided. auditor.
onto main line Raised Ceramic Studs in combination of Solid line to
be used to indicate clear seperation; Also propose to The Nose can accommodate a #326 to highlight Hazard or The island is more than 2m wide close
21 Agreed
use a Sign #326 at the NOSE with enhanced GORE Gore to the nose which is more than sufficient
AREA marking and edge lines; to accommodate the sign as requested
to high-light the location of the nose of
the island. Closed. OK
 Audit Team Findings Designer Responses Audit Team Replies Road Authority Disposition
Response (to
recommendation
) Agree with the
Identified Risk Response Reply
Audit Team Mitigating Recommendation Comment Comment and Status Hazard as Comment
(of a casualty) (to risk) (to designer)
identified

At the proposed Traffic Junction Traffic on the Main line (Towards King Abdullah Bin Do Not Agree Do Not Agree The proposed traffic junction has an on-demand pedestrian phase. This Noted Closed. OK
Abdul Aziz Street) there is no indication of Control as they can be allowed a phase will be sufficient to ensure the pedestrian crossing of the
continous Green unless there is a Pedestrian demand to cross the second half of the The Pedestrian Phase to accommodate an all green carriageway..
22 carraigeway; it may then happen that Pedestrian cross on the green phase to for facilitating Pedestrian across the 2x2 and not To be checked with DoT Traffic Operations Agreed
Pedestrian on 1 half of the carraigeway (Inbound-Towards RaB) and may be held up need to hold them in the Median;
for continous traffic on the outbound only to make a unsafe run accross the 2x2 with
a possibility of V2P collision
The STOP line at the Traffic lights to be at a minimum 3 mtrs from the proposed Agree Do Not Agree The stop lines are already at 3m away from designated pedestrian Noted Closed. OK
signalised crossing; Adjust STOP line at Traffic Signals to be 3 mtrs from crossing.
23 Closed Agreed
Designated Pedestrian Crossing

At the left turn of the Proposed Traffic junction; it is assumed that the left turn Agree Agree Confirmed. These phases are synchronized Noted Closed. OK
movement is synced with the Pedestrian Movement and there is no Conflict The Pedestrian crossing at the left turn to be phased
24 Closed Agreed
with the Green for the left turners;

Immediately after the Left Movement there are existing Inclined Parking on both Propose to remove all parking as indicated in the Do Not Agree Agree The existing angular parking located immediately after the junction are Noted Closed. OK
25 sides of the drive-way; any Cars reversing or waiting for parking would create a Drawings (and backfill all the parking spaces ) and removed. Angular parking at reasonable distance are maintained as this Closed Agreed
queueing onto the junction which may spill onto the main line; Pave the section; area is suffering from parking shortage.
At the Tie-in from King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Street into the inbound of the 2x2; Agree Do Not Agree By implementing this recommendation, the weaving length is being Agree Closed. OK
There is a Possibility of Short distance lane changes for entry into Basements with a Propose Solid Line to avoid lane changes for upto 4 shorten.
possibility of Side-swipes; car lengths and provide Tram Tracks to appropriate
26 receiving lanes; Also REFRESH STOP LINE on the To change as per Auditors recommendations Agreed
same junction; Also add Sign #327 at the Nose of the
Entry Inbound on the left side of the carraigeway;

Lacking of Proper Bus Layby Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Bus stops are provided as per DOT standards and circulation. The bus Agree Closed. OK
stop locations and design was already approved by DOT
Location: Bus Stop STA. 0+540 DoT Standard is to provide on street on
lane bus-stops. This is due to poor
Summary: Risk of Side swipe crashes. public consideration to buses exiting
from designated laybys. It may affect
The bus stop at the out boundary at STA. 540 is on street stop. Vehical on the tail of capacity but buses are relatively
the bus may try to use the left lane wihtout caution to cars using the left lane wich infrequet and will have a limited affect of
may cuse a side swipe crashes. traffic. Drivers have an obligation to
Agree with the proceed with due caution for the
27 Provide a proper bus lay by at this location. Closed
designer. prevailing conditions, including
obstructed views caused by other legally
operating traffic.

Incorrect Public Realm Agree Agree Please refer to revised drawings. Agree Closed. OK

Location: Matching area between proposed and existing at STA. 0+580 in bound
Match the existing edge of asphalt with proposed
28 Ammend Drawings Agreed
Summary: The public realm is incorrect may leading to risk of poor lane discipline public realm,
and risk of side swipe crashes.

Missing Public Realm / Pedestrian Sidewalk Agree Agree The sidewalk is provided at both sides of Road 05. Please refer to Closed Closed. OK
revised drawings.
Location: Both sides of Road 05
Complete the sidewalk / puplic realm to match with
29 Agreed
Summary: The public realm /pedestrian sidewalk is missing and not matching with exisitng pedestrian pavement.
exisitng edge of pavement may leading to risk of pedetrian falling.

Uncontroled Pedestrian Crossing Agree Agree Pedestrian fence will be provided Agree Do not provide the fence at this
stage.
Location: Marina Al Bateen Road This is a low speed. 2 x 2 road in a built
up area, fencing will be an eyesore and
Summary: The cross section for the Main Road of Marina Al Bateen is not a maintenance issue. Do not include it
controlled which allow pedestrian to cross the road randomly which may lead to car at this stage. If pedestrian behaviour
crash into pedestrian. causes a problem later it should be
reviewed and an appropriate solution
Provide safety fence in the median to prevent Roads Authority to decide on Implementation of Fence at provided includung the provision of
30 Agreed
random crossing. Median additional uncontrolled pedestrain
facilities if required. Closed. OK
 Audit Team Findings Designer Responses Audit Team Replies Road Authority Disposition
Response (to
recommendation
) Agree with the
Identified Risk Response Reply
Audit Team Mitigating Recommendation Comment Comment and Status Hazard as Comment
(of a casualty) (to risk) (to designer)
identified

Missing Pedestrian Connectivity Agree Agree The raised pedestrian crossing are provided through out this stretch. Agree Ensure pedestrain connectivity
Location: In bound between STA. 0+320 to STA. 0+520 (Righ side of Carraigeway - Please refer to revised drawings throughout the length of the road on
Inbound) both sides. Also, consider point 15
regarding the cyclepaths. Design the
Summary: Discontinous Sidewalks and lac of Dropped Kerbs public realm to provide proimarily for
Designers to ensure that Pedestrian connectivity is pedestrians but accommodating shared
31 Pedestrian walking along the sidewalk along the in-bound from STA. 0+320 to 0+520 seamless for Pedestrians/cyclists/Prams and other Agreed cucleways and footpaths.
and beyond will come to cross many entrances and exits which are not dropped NMS's all along the section.
kerbed to accomodate seamless Pedestrian connectivity;

Lack of U-Turn at traffic Signal Do Not Agree Do Not Agree The U-turn movement can not be provided due to ROW constrains. Agree Closed. OK
Please note that only left turn is provided due to ROW limitations. No U-
Location: Out-bound / Left Turn at Proposed Traffic Signal Turn sign is provided avoid any confusion to the drivers.

Summary: Risk Confusion to drivers. Provide U-Turn facility at the traffic signal or as
32 Left Turn may be incorporated "Only". Agreed
proposed by DoT TIS/CP Approvals.
The proposed signalized left turn allowing left turn movement only and restrict the U-
Turn movement. Some vehicles may require to go back and access the adjacent
accesses along the in-bound which is not allowed, a risk of confusion to drivers
because of this.
Lack of Cycle Rack Agree Agree Cycle rack will be provided at appropriate locations. Agree Closed. OK

Location: Public Realm Provide Cycle Rack along the public realm so that Locations to be specified and marked up on the Drawings as See point 15.
33 Agreed
Poles are not used to secure cycles they would form a part of BOQ and Scops
Summary: Missing Cycle Rack will confuse the cyclists and will lead to randum
cycle parking.

Other General Items

All Dropped Kerbs to 1:12 and 2 mtrs wide Designers to ensure that all drop Kerbs are shown Agree Agree All transitions from upstand curb to drop curb are as per ADM standards. Agree Closed. OK
1 To ammended Layouts accordingly Agreed
on revised layout
All Nose (especially) on both bounds to have adequate Gore area marking and edge Do Not Agree Do Not Agree Road marking are provided at gores as per ADM standard drawings. Agree Closed. OK
Designers to ensure all hazards /nose/RIRO's and
2 lines on the either sides of the carraigeway To Ammend Layouts accordingly Agreed
accesses to be clearly marked using ROAD Marking
Appropriate Approvals of TIS to be sought from DoT and Utility companies to Agree Agree DOT aproval obtained. utilitiy approval is under process. Agree Closed. OK
proceed with proposed layouts Any changes needs to be Audited and Approved
3 All necessary Approvals to be seeked prior to construction Agreed
by RSU.

All Signs to be sized for speed of Road and have minimum Lateral and Vertical As far as feasible all Pedestrian walks lines (desire Agree Agree Road signs sizes are as per ADM requirements. Signs for NMU are used Agree Closed. OK
4 Clearences lines) and crossing to be seamless and with minimim where ever appropriate. Signs will be placed at site, ensuring To ne ammended and reviewed at RSA-3 Agreed
signs unobstructed path for NMU.
GENERAL ITEMS - Items Out of Scope of the LOW but may
need attention and improvements
Damaged Road Pavement Agree Agree ADM maintainence team to evaluate existing condition and do necessary Agree Closed. OK
repairs,if any
Location: Many Locations at Limit of Work
Replace the damaged Road Pavement at mentioned
1 Summary: The existing road pavement at the limit of works is damaged. The Agreed
locations
proposed roads will be constructed with new pavement and matching with damaged
pavement which may confuse the drivers.

Damaged Pedestrian Pavement Agree Agree ADM maintainence team to evaluate existing condition and do necessary Agree Closed. OK
repairs,if any
Location: Many Locations at Limit of Work
Replace the damaged Road Pavement at mentioned
2 Agreed
Summary: The exisitng pedestirna pavement at many location at the limit of works locations
is damaged and will casue pedestrin hazard.

After the Left Turn Movement at the Junction the road connects substandardly onto a Agree Agree The U-Turn in front of Tabreed needs to be accessed to ensure smooth Agree Closed. OK
U Turn Location (In Front of Tabreed-P34); Although this location is out of Limits; Designers to Propose minimilistic changes to and safe traffic flow.
This connection may need to be improved as the proposal legalises a Left turn enhance Junction Control and reduce Possibility of
3 Designer to propose low cost implementation for Tie-ins Agreed
movement diverting traffic towards IP118. collisions at the junction.

Road Safety Audit Team Findings: Road Safety Audit Team Replies: Road Authority Disposition: Response
Response by the DESIGN ORGANISATION:
Name:
Name: Nandeesh Siva / Omar Hamush Name: Name: Name:
Agree Agree Accept Organization:
Organization ADM / Parsons Organization: Organization: Parsons (Dubai) Organization: ADM Road Safety Audit Team
Revise Date:
Date: 8/July/2018 Do Not Agree Do Not Accept Date:
Date: Date:
Do Not Agree Date: Noted