AP-R655-21 Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in GRD

© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes,
unless approved by Austroads.
AP-R655-21
Research Report
the Guide to Road Design Phase 2

Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in
Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in the Guide to Road Design Phase 2
Prepared by Publisher
Madeleine Bekavac, Noel O’Callaghan and Malcolm Mak Austroads Ltd.

Level 9, 570 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Don Hicks and James Hughes
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

Recent Austroads research reports have been reviewed and any Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
improvements have been identified and assessed for their impact on transport and traffic agencies.
the Guide to Road Design.
Austroads’ purpose is to support our member organisations to
The improvements related to updating design practices based on the deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
outcomes of the research and possible amendments have been succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
developed and incorporated as updates to the Guide. transport research which underpins our input to policy
development and published guidance on the design,
Thirty reports were reviewed, and the Road Design Task Force construction and management of the road network and its
determined the application of the recommendations and inclusion associated infrastructure.
within the Guide to Road Design.
Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
The review also identified possible amendments to the Guide to for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
Traffic Management and Guide to Road Safety, and these have been
consistency for road users.
highlighted in the report.
Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
To assist in incorporating future research into the Guides, a executive representatives from each of its eleven member
procedure has been developed for Task Forces, that outlines the
organisations:
process from inception of the research project to amending the
Guide. This process enables a consistent method to be followed and • Transport for NSW
outcomes of research to be brought into practice in a timely manner. • Department of Transport Victoria
© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes, unless approved by Austroads.
• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Keywords
• Main Roads Western Australia
Road design, research reports, research recommendations, • Department for Infrastructure and Transport South Australia
amendments, process for amendment, road safety
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics
ISBN 978-1-922382-78-8 Northern Territory
• Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate,
Austroads Project No. SRD6219 Australian Capital Territory
Austroads Publication No. AP-R655-21 • Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional
Development and Communications
Publication date September 2021
• Australian Local Government Association
Pages 84
• New Zealand Transport Agency.
© Austroads 2021 | This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by
any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of James Hughes and Peter Aumann who prepared Phase 1 of this project.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
This report provides a summary of activity undertaken to include recent road safety research in the Guide to
Road Design. The research included 30 reports that were reviewed under a previous project (SRD6045,
which was Phase 1 of this project).
The main focus of the new inclusions related to improvements to practice focusing on Safe System, the
vulnerability of motorcycles and specific heavy vehicle road design considerations.
A further outcome of this project provided suggestions to other Guides including the Guide to Road Safety
and the Guide to Traffic Management to include new findings from these 30 research reports.
Moving forward, a process has been developed for future research to be included into the Guides.
Austroads 2021 | page i

Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Research Reports ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Research Reports Excluded in this Project ......................................................................... 3
1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. First Publishing Milestone .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Amendments Made under the First Publishing Milestone................................................................ 6
2.2.1 GRD Part 1 and Part 2 ........................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2 GRD Part 3 ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.3 GRD Part 4 ........................................................................................................................ 18
2.2.4 GRD Part 4A...................................................................................................................... 22
2.2.5 GRD Part 4B...................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.6 GRD Part 4C ..................................................................................................................... 27
2.2.7 GRD Part 5 ........................................................................................................................ 27

2.2.8 GRD Part 5A...................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.9 GRD Part 6A...................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.10 GRD Part 6B...................................................................................................................... 29
3. Second Publishing Milestone ............................................................................................................. 31
3.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 31
3.2 Amendments Made under the Second Publishing Milestone ........................................................ 31
3.2.1 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-R515-16 – Infrastructure Improvements
to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties (Report 10) ................................................................. 31
3.2.2 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-T293-15 – Road Design for Heavy
Vehicles (Report 11) .......................................................................................................... 37
3.2.3 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-T295-15 – Road Geometry Study for
Improved Rural Safety (Report 15) ................................................................................... 41
3.2.4 Amendments Made to GRD from IR-232-15 – Safe System Practice
Amendments to the Guide to Road Design (Report 18) ................................................... 41
3.2.5 Amendments Made to GRD from NTM6021 Safe Systems in the Guide to
Traffic Management (Report 30) ....................................................................................... 57
4. Suggested Improvements for Other Guides ..................................................................................... 58
4.1 Suggested Improvements for the Guide to Road Safety ............................................................... 58
4.1.1 Guide to Road Safety Part 3: Speed Limits and Speed Management .............................. 58
4.2 Suggested Improvements for the Guide to Traffic Management ................................................... 58
4.2.1 Guide to Traffic Management Part 4: Network Management Strategies .......................... 58
4.2.2 Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Link Management .................................................. 58
4.2.3 Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings ........... 59
4.2.4 Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking Management Techniques ....................... 60
4.2.5 Guide to Traffic Management: Set .................................................................................... 61
Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Recommendations Requiring Further Investigation or Endorsement ........................................... 62

6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 65
References ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix A Removal of Duplication in GRD Part 4 Appendix......................................................... 68
Appendix B Additional Commentary on GRD Part 3 Appendix A3.2 .............................................. 71
B.1 Stopping Sight Distance and Vertical Curves ................................................................................ 71
B.2 Extended Design Domain Nomenclature ....................................................................................... 71
B.3 EDD for Stopping Sight Distance (Appendix A.3) .......................................................................... 71
B.4 EDD for Crest Vertical Curves (K value) (Appendix A.3.8) ............................................................ 72
Appendix C Commentary on Truck Volumes from AP-R211-02 Geometric Design
for Trucks: When, Where and How? .................................................................................................. 74
Appendix D Suggested Inclusion to Replace GRD Part 3 Commentary 7 (2016 Edition) ............. 75
D.1 Commentary 7 from GRD Part 3 2016 Edition ............................................................................... 75
D.2 Improving Roadside Safety: Summary Report (Austroads 2014b) ................................................ 75
D.3 Suggested Inclusions ..................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix E Suggested Action for Part 3 Commentary 9 ................................................................. 77
Appendix F Suggested Amendments for Part 4A Section 8.2.4...................................................... 79
F.1 Austroads ....................................................................................................................................... 79
F.2 Queensland .................................................................................................................................... 79
F.3 GRD Part 4 Footnotes .................................................................................................................... 80

F.4 Suggestions .................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix G Commentary on GRD Part 4A Appendix A.1 – EDD and Safety ................................. 81
G.1 Existing GRD Guidance on EDD and Safety ................................................................................. 81
Road Planning (2.1.1) ....................................................................................................... 81
The Safe System Approach (2.2.1) ................................................................................... 81
Design Considerations (2.2.2) ........................................................................................... 81
Designing for Safety (2.2.3) Road Safety Audits............................................................... 82
Performance-based Design (3.6) ...................................................................................... 82
Context-sensitive Design (4.3) .......................................................................................... 83
Normal Design Domain (4.4.1) .......................................................................................... 83
Extended Design Domain (4.4.2) ...................................................................................... 83
Application of the Guidelines (4.5.3) ................................................................................. 83
G.2 Commentary ................................................................................................................................... 83
Tables
Table 1.1: Research reports reviewed as part of SRD6045 ........................................................................ 1

Table 1.2: Impact on the Guide to Road Design .......................................................................................... 3
Table 1.3: Research reports that do not affect this project .......................................................................... 3
Table 2.1: Collated list of updates for first publishing milestone .................................................................. 6
Table 2.2: GRD parts 1 and 2 updates under the first publishing milestone ............................................... 7
Table 2.3: GRD part 3 updates under the first publishing milestone ......................................................... 11
Table 2.5: GRD part 4A updates under the first publishing milestone ....................................................... 22
Table 2.6: GRD part 4B updates under the first publishing milestone ....................................................... 24
Austroads 2021 | page iii

Table 2.7: GRD part 4C updates under the first publishing milestone....................................................... 27
Table 2.11: GRD part 6B updates under the first publishing milestone ....................................................... 29
Table 3.1: Second publishing amendments from report 10 ....................................................................... 31
Table 5.1: Items requiring further investigation, research or endorsement ............................................... 62
Table A 1: Update to GRD part 4 appendix A, B and C ............................................................................. 68
Table C 1: Indicative truck volumes at which truck-based standards are justified for horizontal
curve radius and horizontal stopping sight distance ................................................................. 74
Figures
Figure 1.1: Process flow chart for incorporating research report outcomes into guides ............................... 4
Figure 1.2: Example process ......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.1: Safety and the Safe System objectives in Table 3.1 of GRD Part 2 ........................................... 8
Figure 2.2: Project Management description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1 ..................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Associated designs description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1 ....................................................... 8
Figure 2.4: Updated image for Figure 8.2 in GRD Part 4A ......................................................................... 23
Figure 2.5: Updated image for Figure 8.3 and 8.4 in GRD Part 4A ............................................................ 23
Figure 2.6: New Figure 5.2 in GRD Part 4B ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2.7: Updated image for Figure 4.1 in GRD Part 4B ......................................................................... 27
Figure 2.8: Updated image for Figure 5.14 in GRD Part 6A ....................................................................... 29
Figure 3.1: Updated information for Table C1.3 in GRD Part 6 .................................................................. 40
Figure E 1: Figure from the 2010 version of commentary 9 of part 3 .......................................................... 77
Figure E 2: Figure from the current version of GTM part 5.......................................................................... 78
Figure E 3: Figure from source document used in the current version of GTM part 5 ................................ 78
Figure F 1: Figure 4A-5 from TMR supplement to Austroads guide to road design part 4A:
unsignalised and signalised intersections ................................................................................. 79
Austroads 2021 | page iv

1. Introduction
This project (SRD6219 Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in the Guide to Road Design Phase 2)
follows on from SRD6045 Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research into the Guide to Road Design:
Summary of Research Reports. It is aimed to implement the improvements to the Guide to Road Design
(GRD) that were put forward in SRD6045.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this project is to incorporate recent road safety research updates in the GRD that were
identified in project SRD6045. This is an important step in ensuring road design guidance is up to date with
new research outcomes.
1.2 Scope
The updates to the GRD were split into two publishing milestones to assist with the review and publishing
process.
The deliverables for this project included:

• first publishing milestone GRD update (Austroads word and pdf)

• second publishing milestone GRD update (Austroads word and pdf)
• a process flow chart for incorporating new research into Guide documents
• suggested improvements for other Guides that resulted from the SRD6045 report
• a report detailing the considerations, outputs, conclusions, updates (for each of the first and second
publishing milestones) and transferred items approved by the Road Design Task Force (RDTF).
1.2.1 Research Reports
The road safety research included 30 reports which were reviewed as part of SRD6045 and are listed in
Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Research reports reviewed as part of SRD6045
Amendment
No. Report reference Title
category
1. AP-R509-16 Safe System Assessment Framework 2&4
(Austroads 2016a)
2. AP-R518-16 Safe System Roads for Local Government 2&4
(Austroads 2016b)
3. AP-R460-14 Providing for Road User Error in the Safe System 1&5
(Austroads 2014a)
4. AP-R488-15 Safe System in the Planning Process 6
(Austroads 2015a)
5. AP-R498-15 Improving the Performance of Safe System Infrastructure: Final 3&5
(Austroads 2015b) Report
Austroads 2021 | page 1

Amendment
No. Report reference Title
category
6. AP-R514-16 Achieving Safe System Speeds on Urban Arterial Roads: 3&5
(Austroads 2016c) Compendium of Good Practice
7. AP-R508-16 Speed Reduction Treatments for High-speed Environments 5
(Austroads 2016d)
8. AP-R449-14 Methods for Reducing Speeds on Rural Roads: Compendium of 3
(Austroads 2014b) Good Practice
9. AP-R455-14 Model National Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits at High-risk 6
(Austroads 2014c) Locations
10. AP-R515-16 Infrastructure Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties 3
(Austroads 2016h)
11. AP-T293-15 Road Design for Heavy Vehicles 3
(Austroads 2015c)
12. AP-R530-16 Older Road Users: Emerging Trends 2
(Austroads 2016e)
13. AP-R519-16 Guidance on Median and Centreline Treatments to Reduce 3
(Austroads 2016f) Head-on Casualties
14. AP-R481-15 Safety Provisions for Floodways over Roads 5
(Austroads 2015d)
15. AP-T295-15 Road Geometry Study for Improved Rural Safety 2
(Austroads 2015e)
16. AP-R450-14 Investigation of Key Crash Types: Run-off-road and Head-on 2
(Austroads 2014d) Crashes in Urban Areas: Final Report
17. AP-R480-15 Investigation of Key Crash Types: Rear-end Crashes in Urban 1

(Austroads 2015f) and Rural Environments
18. IR-232-15 ‘Safe System Practice Amendments to the Guide to Road 3
(Austroads 2015g) Design’
19. IR-223-14 ‘Safety Operational and Environmental Impacts of Changes to 6
(Austroads 2014e) Speed Limits’
20. IR-237-15 ‘Updating the Guide to Road Safety Part 9: Roadside Hazard 3
(Austroads 2015h) Management’
21. IR-260-16 ‘Road Safety Audit and Road Safety Engineering Toolkits: Usage 7
(Austroads 2016g) Survey 2011–16’
22. Technical Advice Lapping of Guardrail Terminals 4
SBTA 17-001
(Austroads 2017b)
23. Technical Advice Proximity of Safety Barriers to Batter Hinge Point 1
SBTA 17-002
(Austroads 2017c)
24. SRD2068 Road Cross-section Design for Road Stereotypes (including In progress at the
Network Safety Plans and a Safe System) time
25. AP-T330-17 Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed use Arterials 3
(Austroads 2017a)
26. AP-R542-17 Bicycle Safety at Roundabouts 3&4
(Austroads 2017d)
27. AP-R461-14 Assessment of the Effectiveness of On-road Bicycle Lanes at 5&6
(Austroads 2014f) Roundabouts in Australia and New Zealand
28. AP-R560-18 Towards Safe System Infrastructure Compendium of Current 3
(Austroads 2018) Knowledge
29. AP-R549-17 Improved Railway Crossing Design for Heavy Vehicles 2&3
(Austroads 2017e)
30. AP-R595-19 Embedding Safe System in the Guide to Traffic Management 3&6
(Austroads 2019)

Each report was given an amendment category from 1 to 7 as outlined in Table 1.2. To determine possible
amendments to the GRD, each of the reports or technical advice documents were reviewed and any
suggestions or improvements relating to a Part of the GRD were identified.
Table 1.2: Impact on the Guide to Road Design
Category Impact
1 Significant content/recommendations incorporated in part(s) of the GRD as soon as possible

2 Content/recommendations incorporated in parts of GRD at the next revision
3 Some content/recommendations partially incorporated into GRD at the next revision
4 Content highlights useful background information for practitioners that should be referenced in the GRD
5 Content/recommendations noted with potential for inclusion in GRD with further investigation
6 Content noted with influence but without direct relevance to the GRD
7 Content noted without direct relevance to the GRD
1.2.2 Research Reports Excluded in this Project
No changes to the GRD are required as part of SRD6219 from the reports listed in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Research reports that do not affect this project
No. Reason
3 Recommendations from the report to be addressed in Road Stereotypes Project and Austroads Project
SSP2068
4 Recommendations from the report do not require any action as they were assigned Amendment Category 6
12 Recommendations from the report do not require any action for GRD
17 Recommendations from the report have already been made in the 2017 GRD Part 4 revision.
Recommendations to be forwarded to the Network Task Force (NTF), Road Safety Task Force (RSTF) and
Traffic Management Working Group (TMWG)
20 Recommendations from the report to be addressed in TP2056 (a separate Part 6 update project)
24 Recommendations from the report will be referenced as a separate document and included in the
appropriate Parts of the GRD, GTM and GRS when completed
25 Recommendations from the report to be forwarded to the NTF and TMWG
and 6

1.3 Methodology
An outcome of this project was to develop a process to incorporate future recommendations from research
reports into relevant Guides. Figure 1.1 provides a flow chart for this process and Figure 1.2 provides an
example of how this process may be applied. This process was applied to this project.
Due to the volume of recommendations made under SRD6045 and proposed amendments to the GRD, this
project was divided into two publishing milestones as discussed in Sections 4 and 5.
Figure 1.1: Process flow chart for incorporating research report outcomes into guides

Figure 1.2: Example process

2. First Publishing Milestone
2.1 Scope
Table 2.1 lists the research reports that formed the basis of amendments made under the first publishing
milestone. These include recommendations assigned to Category 1 to 3 priorities (as per Table 1.2) and
‘quick-win’ statements from the Appendices of the SRD6045 report.
Table 2.1: Collated list of updates for first publishing milestone
Category 1–3 Appendices A, B, C, D

Report 1 Report 10
Report 2 Report 11
Report 5 Report 15
Report 6 Report 18
Report 8
Report 13
Report 16
Report 26
Report 29
Report 30
2.2 Amendments Made under the First Publishing Milestone

This section lists the changes made for each GRD Part under the first publishing milestone.
2.2.1 GRD Part 1 and Part 2
As part of Austroads (2021), Parts 1 and 2 were merged into a new Part 1. All recommendations from
SRD6045 relating to Parts 1 and 2 under the first publishing milestone are detailed in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: GRD parts 1 and 2 updates under the first publishing milestone
SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

Report 1 Part 2: Insert the following paragraph: As part of Austroads (in press), Parts 1 and 2
Section The Safe System Assessment were merged into a new Part 1 and as part the
1.4.2 Framework provides designers with scope of this update a section on Safe System
a methodical way of comparing the Assessment Frameworks was included in
extent to which their proposed ‘Section 2.2.3 Designing for Safety’ with the
package of treatments aligns with following text:
the Safe System objectives. The Safe System assessment
framework includes all ‘pillars’ of the The first action item from the Australian National
system, including an assessment of Road Safety Strategy (NRSS; Australian
issues relating to the road and travel Transport Council 2011) is to ensure that all new
speeds. It also ensures road projects consider Safe System principles,
consideration of other pillars which and an assessment needs to be undertaken to
are typically included less often in confirm that this has been done. The underlying
infrastructure projects. These principle of the Safe System is that humans are
include road user issues and fallible, and sooner or later mistakes (and hence
vehicle-related issues. Post-crash crashes) will happen. When they do, the system
care is also considered. Each should be designed to prevent a fatal or serious
individual treatment option and the injury from occurring.
way in which it contributes to safety A Safe System assessment will identify the areas
of the different quadrants of the of the project where there is a high risk of a fatal
Safe System is scored, considering and/or serious injury. Modifications to the project
the exposure, likelihood and are then identified to address these high-risk
severity. By summing these areas to ultimately align with the Safe System
treatment scores, the designer can principles. To measure how well a project aligns
quickly get an impression of how with the Safe System principles, a Safe System
their complete treatment package matrix has been developed which assesses seven
satisfies the Safe System major crash types against the exposure to that
objectives. Although it can be crash risk, the likelihood of it occurring and the
applied to any project, this process severity of the crash should it occur.
is particularly useful in an urban Whilst the Safe System approach has been
environment in focusing on the adopted by Australia and New Zealand since
minor adjustments a designer can 2004, there has been difficulty amongst
make to make incremental safety practitioners integrating Safe System into their
gains. It should be considered as road infrastructure projects. Austroads has since
one input to the decision-making produced a practitioner assessment tool process
process. to assist in the methodical consideration of Safe
System objectives in road infrastructure projects.
This can be found in Austroads Research Report
AP-R509-16, Safe System Assessment
Framework. Furthermore, some jurisdictions have
their own guidelines and requirements for Safe
System assessments, and practitioners should
contact their local jurisdiction to ensure
compliance.
It should be noted that a Safe System assessment
does not replace a road safety audit. A Safe
System assessment evaluates whether a project
aligns with the Safe System approach, whereas a
road safety audit identifies road safety issues
regardless of the potential crash severity.


Report 1 Part 2: Insert Safety and the Safe System As part of SRD6107, this table is now in Part 1,
Section 3 objectives in this table, replacing the Section 4.7 Coordination of Disciplines, Table 4.5.
Table 3.1 Project Management – Project Under ‘Project Management’ as shown in Figure
scope and objective row. (as shown 2.2 of this report.
in Figure 2.1. Then under ‘Associated Designs’ is shown in
Figure 2.3 of this report.
Figure 2.1: Safety and the Safe System objectives in Table 3.1 of GRD Part 2
Figure 2.2: Project Management description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1
Figure 2.3: Associated designs description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1


Report 5 Part 2: Currently this table has little Aside from the aforementioned additions in the
Section 3, reference to safety. Suggest a new Part 1, Section 4.7, further reference to the
Table 3.1 significant update to this table that Safe System approach is made throughout the
references the Safe System document, including:
principles and objectives and refer Section 2.1.1 Road Planning
to the safety treatments outlined in Section 2.2.1 The Safe System Approach
the Safe System Assessment Section 2.2.2 Design Considerations
Framework (Recommendation for Section 2.2.3 Designing for Safety
reports Nos 1 & 2). Include Section 3.3 Objectives of Road Design
examples from report in an Section 3.4.3 Design Speed
Appendix to Parts 1 and/or 2 when Section 3.7 Community Expectations
appropriately evaluated. Section 4.3 Context Sensitive Design
Section 5.2 Design Report, Documentation and
Approvals
Report 10/ Part 2: Transfer Table 2.1 from GRD Part 3 As part of SRD6107, there is now a new
Appendix Section 1 ‘Section 2.3 Multi Modal Considerations’ which
A includes a sub section entitled ‘Provision for
Motorcyclists’ with the following text:
Motorcyclists are more vulnerable than most other
road users due to their unique operating
characteristics. For this reason, it is most
important that motorcyclists’ safety needs are
considered during the design, construction,
maintenance and management of roads.
Consequently, road designers should appreciate
that some design issues or situations that may
arise could place motorcyclists at greater risk than
drivers of other types of vehicles. The Austroads
Research Report AP-R515-16 Infrastructure

Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties
(Austroads 2016c) provides detailed information
regarding how design choices for mid-block and
intersections can influence motorcycle crash risk.
Table 2.1 summarises design issues and good
practices that are relevant to motorcyclist safety.
Table 2.1 is a whole page of ‘Design Issues and
good practices that influence motorcyclist safety’
Report 11/ Part 2: Factors that Influence Design Factors that influence design standards is now
Appendix Section Standards – The Vehicle: located in Part 1, Section 4.1.2.
B 2.4.2 add reference to New Zealand References have been included.
Transport Agency Guide On-road
Tracking Curves for Heavy Vehicles
(2007).
Report 11/ Part 2: Factors that Influence Design Factors that influence design standards is now
Appendix Section Standards – Road Factors; located in Part 1, Section 4.1.2.
B 2.4.2 add to paragraph Road factors a References have been included.
cross-reference to AS 1742.9 for
information on treatments to alert
drivers of an approaching steep
grade.


Report 18/ Part 1: Add to first paragraph: Section 3.1 has essentially been removed from
Appendix Section 3.1 The purpose of road design is to the updated Part 1. However in the initial overview
D produce as safe a road network as of the GRD Parts there is text relating to the Safe
is practically affordable that is also System approach and numerous other references
economical and efficient. The as per the response above to Report 5.
design process commences and Part 1: Objectives of Road Design (this part) is an
develops a plan. overview of road design that describes the scope
of the Guide to Road Design series, the context of
the road design process, the documentation,
quality management, philosophy, objectives and
principles on which good design is based, and the
design considerations that may be required. The
use of each part, the relationships between them
and their relationships to the design process are
also covered. An introduction to the Safe System
approach to road design has been included to
alert road designers to the importance of applying
such principles in every project regardless of size
or complexity. Part 1 is particularly useful to
designers who are new to road design or are
using the Guide to Road Design for the first time.
Report 18/ Part 1: First paragraph, to read: Section 4.7 Coordination of Disciplines has been
Appendix Section 4 Design considerations include all updated as recommended:
D the things that are important from an Design considerations include all the things that
engineering and community are important from an engineering and community
perspective that impact on the perspective that impact the outcome of the design.
outcome of the design. They must They must include providing the safest possible
design within the economic, social, and
include providing the safest possible

design within the economic, social, environmental considerations for the development
and environmental considerations of a road project. Design characteristics and
for the development of a road values adopted must provide a satisfactory service
project. to road users and be economically viable within
the financial, topographical and environmental
constraints that may exist.
Report 18/ Part 2: Second paragraph: second Section 1.1 is now in Part 1, Section 3.3
Appendix Section 1.1 sentence: amend to read: Objectives of road design. Updated as requested.
D ‘The objectives of new and existing
road projects should be carefully
considered to achieve the safest
possible road while balancing the
level of traffic service, whole-of-life
costs, flexibility for future upgrading
or rehabilitation, and environmental
impact.’ Bring the safety objective to
the first dot point.
Report 18/ Part 2: First paragraph: to read: Section 1.5 is now in Part 1, Section 3.7
Appendix Section 1.5 The involvement of stakeholders, Community Expectations. It has been rewritten but
D particularly community groups and still addresses the recommendation:
the general public is important so The involvement of stakeholders throughout the
these groups may obtain a better planning process helps to ensure that all issues
understanding of likely safety and needs are identified and considered, and that
outcomes and the methods outcomes have a high degree of support and
available to achieve these ownership. Public consultation is therefore an
outcomes. Involving stakeholders essential part of all road planning and design
throughout the planning. activities. The importance of the Safe System
approach to road design should be communicated
to the community to gain its support and
acceptance.
Report 18/ Part 2: Third paragraph new first sentence: Section 2 has essentially been removed.
Appendix Section 2 In considering the trade-offs, the
D impact on the safety outcomes
should be identified, when these
factors are included.


Report 18/ Part 2: Construction factors: Whole-of-life Section 3 Table 3.1, is now in Part 1, Section 4.7
Appendix Section 3 costs: add the following text: Coordination of disciplines.
D Table 3.1 Crash cost savings in the costs. Whole-of-life costs have been updated.
Report 18/ Part 2: Industrial factors: add Section 3 Table 3.1, is now in Part 1, Section 4.7
Appendix Section 3 Design to include consideration of Coordination of disciplines.
D Table 3.1 the maintenance tasks Industrial factors are no longer in the table.
2.2.2 GRD Part 3
All recommendations from SRD6045 relating to Part 3 under the first publishing milestone are detailed in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: GRD part 3 updates under the first publishing milestone

Report Part 3: Insert the following paragraph: Paragraph inserted as documented.
16 Section When narrow lane widths are being
4.2.5 considered, offsets to roadside hazards
and operating speeds are particularly
relevant. Close or significant roadside
hazards or vertical roadside features
may encourage drivers to ‘shy’ and
travel closer to the centreline, increasing
the risk of head-on collisions. Narrow
lane widths logically provide lower

margins of driver error and less room for
heavy vehicle tracking. This increases
the risk of vehicles regularly tracking
into the shoulder or onto a footpath.
Report Part 3: Insert the following paragraph: New heading under Safety Considerations
16 Section 6.2 Steep downhill gradients, or even a titled 'Steep or prolonged downhill gradient'.
gradual downhill gradient over a Paragraph added under this heading as
prolonged length, can lead to documented.
involuntarily high operating speeds. The
downstream geometric design must take
account of this increased speed and
drivers’ perceptions (7.6.1). Out-of-
context, low radius or compound curves,
that may be difficult to read or
misleading for drivers in these contexts
should be avoided (Section 7.5.1).
Report 6 Part 3: Insert the following paragraph: Paragraph has been inserted as documented
Section Examples of mid-block treatments that and references a new Appendix B titled
1.5.1 are consistent with the Safe System ‘Appendix B Mid-block Treatments for Safe
objectives are pedestrian refuges System Speeds’ which contains examples of
(AGRD04), medians, lower speed limits these treatments including:
and variable speed limit signs. These B1 Pedestrian Refuges
are urban or urban fringe treatments B2 Medians
where the need for multilane capacity B3 Variable Speed Limits
makes effective speed management B4 Advance Curve Warning Signs
very difficult to achieve. Other emerging B5 Chevron Alignment Markers
treatments such as road diets, raised B6 Advisory Speed Signs
platforms and wombat crossings require
further evaluation at this stage. Text has not been shown in this table due to
Pending wider inclusion in the next length.
scheduled revision, add the appropriate
treatments as example in the
Appendices of both Parts 3 and 4 and
add references to these appendices


Report 8 Part 3: Curves, based on report Appendix: A.1 The following text has been added to the end
Section 5.10 (A.1.3 through to A.1.9), include of Section 5.10:
reference to the GRS Part 3 (Austroads For further information refer to the Guide to
2008a) and GTM Part 5 (Austroads Road Safety Part 3: Speed Limits and Speed
2017j). Management (Austroads 2008b) and the
Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Road
Management (Austroads 2014a).
Report Part 3 Consider putting a section into the main Section 4.7.2: Paragraph 8 Sentence 2
13 Section 4.7 text relating to centreline treatments, inserted as follows:
considered for network-wide treatments It is suggested that these treatments are
for all single carriageway roads with considered as a networkwide approach on
volume > 4000 vehicles per day in roads with greater than 4000 vehicles per day.
advance of the completion of Austroads Section 4.7.1 Wide Centreline Treatments has
project SSP2068 and reference referenced Appendix F for further information.
Appendix F.
Report Part 3: Insert examples, based on report Examples have been included in new
13 Appendix F Section 3 – Median Treatment Section 4.7.1: Median Treatments as follows:
Examples Painted Median
Painted medians, also known as flush
medians, are a low-cost option that addresses
head-on crashes by improving lateral
separation of vehicles and discouraging
overtaking (Austroads 2010d). Figure 3.1 and
Figure 3.2 show installations of painted
medians on curved and straight road sections
respectively.
Painted medians are generally preferable to
raised medians where the roadway is too

narrow to install a raised median (i.e. the
associated clearances are not possible), or
where the costs are not justified (Austroads
2010a).
Narrowing the road through the installation of
medians can also help to reduce travel speeds
and encourage drivers to travel at a more
appropriate speed for the environment
presented to them. By travelling at lower
speeds, drivers have more opportunity to avoid
a collision, whilst the severity of any crash that
may occur is reduced (Austroads 2014a).
Pavement Bars
Pavement bars (also referred to as safety
bars) are raised blocks located within the
painted median, used to augment the median
(Figure 3.4).
Although traversable, they provide a very
strong audio-tactile response, discouraging
drivers from crossing them except in an
emergency. They also improve the visibility of
the median, particularly in wet conditions
(Austroads 2009d). By discouraging drivers
from traversing the median, pavement bars
also discourage illegal overtaking manoeuvres
(AS 1742.2 2009).
This treatment should only be used on roads
with 85th percentile speeds less than 75 km/h.
For roads with higher speeds, RRPMs may be
used to augment painted islands instead
(AS 1742.2 2009). Pavement bars should also
not be used on roadways with a width less
than 6.8 m (Austroads 2009d).


Pavement bars may be useful where raised
medians may not be appropriate due to
pavement width or lighting issues
(AS 1742.2 2009). It is advised that they can
be applied at relatively low cost and that they
do not affect surface drainage
(Austroads 2009d).
When applying this treatment, the needs of
motorcyclists and cyclists should be
considered. It is suggested that bars should be
spaced more than 2.0 m apart so they are
greater than the typical wheelbase of
motorcycles. Use on curves should be avoided
so as to prevent the destabilisation of
motorcycles at this critical point (Austroads
2009d).
Wide Centreline Treatment
Wide centrelines are a type of painted median
treatment, also known as the narrow painted
median strip treatment (Figure 3.5).
This treatment type typically provides a 1 m
wide narrow median, increasing the separation
of vehicles, but with negligible effect on vehicle
travel speeds (Burdett 2011). Whilst 1 m wide
centrelines are the advised width for this
treatment, where geometric constraints do not
allow for this, narrower wide centreline
treatments are still expected to provide benefit,
albeit reduced, and can be managed on a risk

basis.
The addition of raised profile linemarking
(Section 2.2) increases the effectiveness of
this treatment, alerting drivers should they
deviate from their lane (Whittaker 2012).
Figure 3.6 shows an example of a wide
centreline treatment with raised profile
linemarking.
Installation of wide centrelines can generally
be achieved within the space available on a
two-way undivided road, e.g. a 1 m wide
centreline can be formed by reducing each
3.5 m wide lane to 3.0 m wide
(Whittaker 2012), or through a combination of
narrowing the shoulder and lane widths
(Neuman et al. 2003).
However, lane and/or shoulder narrowing can
only be achieved if road geometry after
narrowing will still allow trucks and buses to be
comfortably positioned away from the wide
centreline (Neuman et al. 2003). Lane and
shoulder narrowing limits a drivers ability to
regain control of an errant vehicle, so
practitioners should consider the occurrence of
loss-of-control crashes on the roadway before
implementing this treatment.
Intuitively, reducing the width of the lane will
have the effect of concentrating wheel paths,
which may exacerbate rutting in certain
situations. Where a road carries significant
numbers of heavy vehicles or towed vehicles,
reducing the lane width may require further
consideration of its impact.


Nevertheless, the benefits of introducing the
wide centreline are considered to outweigh the
disbenefits of narrowing the lanes to 3.0 m to
accommodate them (Department of Transport
and Main Roads 2013). An additional benefit
of this treatment type is that it encourages
lower travel speeds (Neuman et al. 2003).
Refer to Appendix G for further information.
Raised Median
Raised medians, whilst more expensive than
painted medians, are often preferred for their
conspicuity and physical deterrent effect in
preventing cross-median manoeuvres. Raised
medians can also accommodate signposting,
lighting and traffic signal hardware, and may
be landscaped, improving aesthetics and
restricting headlight glare (Austroads 2010a).
Typically, raised medians are more common
on urban and semi-urban roads than rural
roads.
Figure 3.9 shows an example of a paved
raised median, whilst Figure 3.10 shows a
grassed raised median which, as well as
separating traffic, provides locations for
signage and lighting.
When deciding upon the introduction of a
raised median, the following factors should be
considered (Austroads 2010a), whether:
• any artificial lighting needs to be provided

• the raised medians are likely to affect
drainage and the steps needed to address
this
• additional roadway space will be required to
store immobilised vehicles and for offset to
median kerbs.
The kerbing used in raised medians should
be semi-mountable and clearly delineated
(Austroads 2010a).
Median Turning Bays

Whilst primarily a treatment to allow turning
into driveways and entrances with minimal
rear-end crashes, studies have shown that the
installation of median turning bays (known in
New Zealand as flush medians) also help to
reduce head on crashes. These bays serve to
provide a buffer between opposing directions
of travel (Neuman et al. 2003).
Figure 3.28 presents a diagram demonstrating
the operation of median turning bays, whilst
Figure 3.29 presents an example of a median
turning bay.
Median turning bays help to reduce head-on
crashes in two ways:
• They give the driver a more protected
location to judge acceptable gaps in the
oncoming flow. This in turn reduces driver
pressure, encouraging the driver to make
safer decisions.
• They provide a painted median between
opposing vehicles, providing the safety
benefits of such medians, as discussed in
Section 3.1 (Neuman et al. 2003).


Median turning bays can be installed on
four-lane undivided roads by modifying the
layout to a three-lane roadway with a median
turning bay. Alternately, two-lane roads can be
reconstructed to include a median turning bay
(Neuman et al. 2003).
Report Part 3: Reference Appendix E Appendix E is referenced in Section 4.7.2.
13 Section 4.7
Report Part 3: Insert examples Examples have been included in new
13 Appendix E Section 4.7.1 rather than Appendix E as
Appendix is only relating to narrow median
treatments with wire safety rope barriers.
Report Part 3 GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C This will be postponed to the second
30 (Austroads 2017f, 2017i, 2015m) need publishing milestone as no referenced
to reference examples of intersections examples are in Report 30.
and interchanges that achieve the Safe
System principles.
GRD Parts 3, 4 and 6A should reference
these examples of treatments.
Report Part 3: Additional comment in paragraph ‘Semi- Paragraph reads as follows:
10/ Section mountable kerb’ preference with words Semi-mountable kerb – For use on heavily
Appendix 4.6.4 from the report ‘Barrier kerbs, if struck, trafficked multi-lane roads, where speeds are
A may re-direct the path of a motorcycle or high on both sides of the carriageway, and on
result in them losing control'. traffic control islands. Semi-mountable kerbs
allow drivers to travel close to the kerb, making
full use of the traffic lane. If the
semi-mountable kerb is struck by the vehicle,
this profile is unlikely to cause the driver to

lose control of the vehicle whereas barrier
kerb, if struck, may re-direct the path of a
vehicle (particularly a motorcycle) or result in
them losing control. A semi-mountable kerb
should not be used to allow vehicular access
to properties. Where a footpath is located
directly behind the kerb, consideration should
be made to use barrier kerb.
Report Part 3: First paragraph add – Text added to the end of paragraph 1 as
11/ Section The design and check vehicle need to documented.
Appendix 2.2.7 be appropriate for classification and
B function of the road. For example, some
roads carry relatively high volumes of B-
doubles or Type 1 and 2 road trains and
where this is the case, may be more
suitable as the design or check vehicle.
Report Part 3: Table note 2 to be amended to – Amended as documented.
11/ Section 2 Where truck volume exceeds 250 vpd
Appendix 4.4.3, one-way, median slopes should be 10:1
B Table 4.10 or flatter.
Report Part 3: Paragraph commencing ‘Crashes can Amended as documented.
11/ Section 4.5: occur where vehicles run off the road...’
Appendix amend the third sentence to read:
B ‘However, where truck volumes are high
(10% and more), embankment slopes
flatter than 10:1 are desirable, as this
batter slope is considered to be
recoverable for trucks.’


Report Part 3: General: Sixth paragraph first sentence Amended as documented.
11/ Section 7.1 amend to read:
Appendix Designers should strongly avoid locating
B features that are likely to require large or
‘special’ vehicles to brake on curves
causing them to possibly lose stability or
control. For example, the location of an
intersection where the major road is on
a small radius curve.
Report Part 3: First paragraph, new second sentence: Amended as documented.
11/ Section The use of compound curves is not
Appendix 7.5.1 favoured due to drivers not perceiving
B the change in curvature and not
anticipating a change in side friction
demand. To minimise the operational
problems, the curves should be
designed requiring a consistent side
friction demand.
Report Part 3: First paragraph, add fourth dot point: Dot point added as documented.
11/ Section Where grades cause the disparities in
Appendix 8.5.2 vehicle speeds, and particularly where
B there is a relatively high percentage of
heavy vehicles or cars towing caravans
or trailers, passing lanes or turn-out
bays should be considered to enable the
faster moving vehicles to pass.
Report Part 3: Second paragraph, amend second Amended as documented.
11/ Section sentence:

Appendix 9.6.2 Slow vehicle turnouts can reduce the
B crash risk by providing an opportunity
for slower moving vehicles to move into
a separate lane, allowing faster vehicles
to pass. This improves safety and traffic
flow. A slow vehicle turnout (passing
bay) may be provided as shown on
Figure 9.13.
Report Part 3: Third paragraph: First sentence: amend Amended as documented.
11/ Section to:
Appendix 9.6.2 On steep grades where truck speeds
B can reduce to a ‘crawl’ speed less than
40 km/h and a full climbing lane cannot
be provided, passing bays may provide
an improvement to traffic flow.
Report Part 3: Second dot point to read: Amended as documented.
11/ Section • proportion of heavy vehicles is ≥ 10%
Appendix 9.6.2 of the traffic.
B
Report Part 3: Last dot point to read: Amended as documented.
11/ Section • if the road segment has no crash
Appendix 9.6.2 history associated with heavy
B vehicles and overtaking,
consideration will be required to
consider construction costs and
impact on environmental amenity
Report Part 3: Third paragraph: add dot point: Dot point added as documented.
15/ Section 7.1 • The risk of run-off-road casualty
Appendix crashes is greatly increased where a
C curves radius < 600 m is combined
with a grade > 6% in high-speed
environments.


Report Part 3: First paragraph: add dot points: Dot points added as documented.
15/ Section • Adverse crossfall should be avoided
Appendix 8.5.5 on high-speed roads with downhill
C grades steeper than 4%.
• If the steep (i.e. ≥ 6%) downhill grade
continues for long distances, consider
lowering the speed limit for this
section of road. Refer to GRS Part 3
(Austroads 2008a) for guidance on
speed limits.
Report Part 3: First paragraph: add cross-reference to The following text has been inserted to the
18/ Section the outcomes of the Project SRD2068. beginning of paragraph 2:
Appendix 2.2.3 Austroads has developed the Network Design
D for Road Safety (Stereotypes for
Cross-sections and Intersections) User Guide
(Austroads 2020) to provide guidance on
implementing different cross-section designs
for 13 road stereotypes based on various
attributes such as road function, geometry,
speed limits and traffic volumes.
Report Part 3: First paragraph: add: Text added to the end of paragraph 1 as
18/ Section 3.1 Designers should also consider vehicle documented.
Appendix speeds on the approaches to
D intersections, and it is important that
speeds are managed to reduce the
impacts of a crash, should one occur.
Report Part 3: First paragraph: add dot point: Amended as documented.

18/ Section • very low speed ≤ 30 km/h’ and
Appendix 3.2.5 amend ‘low speed’ to ‘69 to 31 km/h’.
D
Report Part 3: Third paragraph add: Text added to the end of paragraph 3 as
18/ Section 4 For further information on the documented.
Appendix contribution of cross-section elements,
D refer to the outcomes of SRD2068.
Report Part 3: Fourth paragraph: add dot point: Added to end of paragraph 4.
18/ Section • for information on parking turnover
Appendix 4.8.10 rates refer to AS 2890.5.
D
Report Part 3: Matter for the GTM Part 5 Paragraph 2 now reads as follows:
18/ Section (Austroads 2017g). Entering and leaving parking spaces from a
Appendix 4.10.2 through traffic lane introduces slow-moving
D and reversing movements that may conflict
with the traffic flow. These movements would
need to be able to be identified by other
drivers so they can take appropriate actions.
Hence, parallel parking is best suited to roads
with lower speed limits. Where the speed limit
is 60 km/h or less, there should desirably be
0.5 m clearance from the nearest moving
traffic lane. This clearance should be
increased by 1.0 m for each 10 km/h by which
traffic speeds exceed 60 km/h, up to a
maximum of 3.0 m.
Report Part 3: Fifth paragraph: add reference to The following text has been added to the end
18/ Section outcomes of SRD2068. of paragraph 5:
Appendix 4.11.2 Refer to the Network Design for Road Safety
D (Stereotypes for Cross-sections and
Intersections) User Guide (Austroads 2020) for
the implications on the star rating of a road
when a roadside safety barrier is used.


Report Part 3: Add new third paragraph: Added new paragraph as documented.
18/ Section Information on locating bus stops and
Appendix 4.12.1 bus bays can be found in GTM Part 5
D (Austroads 2017g).
Report Part 3: Second paragraph: add dot point: Added new dot point as documented.
18/ Section • bus stop waiting areas need to be
Appendix 4.12.3 visible to passing drivers and
D separated from other road users and,
where there is high risk, the waiting
area is protected from errant
vehicles.
Report Part 3: Third paragraph: Where the horizontal Text added to the end of the third paragraph
18/ Section 6.1 and vertical geometry is unable to be as documented.
Appendix coordinated, the designer should review
D the alignments and modify the design to
minimise any impacts.
Report Part 3: First paragraph: add Text added to the end of the first paragraph as
18/ Section 7.9 For more information on the benefits of documented.
Appendix widening on horizontal curve refer to
D The Application of Asymmetrical Design
Principles to Rural Roads (Levett 2005).
Report Part 3: Floodways: add fourth paragraph: Added to the end of Section 8.6.3 as
18/ Section For more information on floodways refer documented.
Appendix 8.6.3 to Safety Provisions for Floodways Over
D Roads (Austroads 2015d).
Report Part 3: Fourth paragraph: new fourth numbered New dot point added as documented.
18/ Section A1 point:

Appendix EDD parameters should not be
D used where safety issues have
been identified.
Report Part 3: Add: Text added as documented.
18/ Commentary For information on the safety benefits of
Appendix 7 different shoulder widths refer to
D Improving Roadside Safety: Summary
Report (Austroads 2014g).
2.2.3 GRD Part 4
Table 2.4.

Report Part 4: Insert the following paragraph: New Section 3.7.5: Importance of seal and
29 Section Importance of seal and approach delineation: approach delineation: text added as
3.7 The sealing of the approaches provides a documented.
stable surface for vehicle deceleration and
acceleration and compared to an unsealed
road approach. As a result, the sight
distances required for road vehicles are
reduced. Sealing the approaches also
enables pavement markings to be installed.
This would improve delineation and increase
driver awareness of the crossing.


Report Part 4: Design Vehicle include reference to Appendix The following reference has been added to
29 Section D of AS 1742.7:2016. the end of Section 5.2:
5.2 When designing in the vicinity of a railway
crossing, reference should be made to
Appendix D of AS 1742.7:2016 Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 7:
Railway Crossings for sight distance
requirements of the design vehicle.
Report Part 4: Sight Lines, include reference to Reference already in Section 10.2: refer
29 Section AS 1742.7:2016. below to 6th paragraph:
10.2 AS 1742.7:2016 specifies the use of railway
crossing warning signs which prompt drivers
to look for trains when approaching a
crossing that has passive control and to look
for a flashing light assembly when
approaching a crossing that has active
control. The use of such signs does not
diminish the need for adequate sight
distance.
Report 6 Part 4: Insert the following paragraph: Text added as follows, reference to the new
Section Example of intersection treatments that are GRD Part 7 included which will include
1.3.1 consistent with the Safe System objectives further detail on these innovative treatments:
are roundabouts and lower speed limits at, or Example of intersection treatments that are
in the vicinity of, intersections. The extent of consistent with the Safe System objectives
these treatments will vary depending on the are roundabouts and lower speed limits at, or
environment and how difficult effective in the vicinity of, intersections. The extent of
‘self-explaining’ speed management is to these treatments will vary depending on the
achieve. Other emerging treatments such as environment and how difficult effective ‘self-
signalised or ‘Turbo’ roundabouts, raised explaining’ speed management is to achieve.
intersections and dwell-on-red signals require Other emerging treatments such as
further evaluation at this stage. signalised or ‘Turbo’ roundabouts, raised
intersections and dwell-on-red signals
Pending wider inclusion in the next scheduled require further evaluation at this stage but
revision, add the appropriate treatments as initial information can be found in the Guide
examples in the Appendices of both Parts 3 to Road Design Part 7: New and Emerging
and 4 and add references to these Treatments and Supplements (Austroads in
appendices press).
Report 8 Part 4: Sight Distance, based on report Appendix: No amendments have been made as
Section A.2 (A.2.6), include reference to GRS Part 3 Section 3.1 does not refer to Sight Distance.
3.1 and GTM Part 5.
Pending wider inclusion in the next scheduled

revision, add the appropriate treatments as
examples in the Appendices of both GRD
Parts 3 and 4 (Austroads 2016i, 2017f) and
add references to these appendices in the
main body text as appropriate.
Report 8 Part 4: Level Crossing Approaches, based on report The following text has been added to the end
Section Appendix: A.3 (A.3.1, A.3.2), refer to GRS of Section 10.1:
10.1 Part 3 and GTM Part 5. For further information refer to the Guide to
Road Safety Part 3: Speed Limits and Speed
Pending wider inclusion in the next scheduled Management (Austroads 2008) and the
revision, add the appropriate treatments as Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Road
examples in the Appendices of both GRD Management (Austroads 2020).
Parts 3 and 4 (Austroads 2016i, 2017f) and
add references to these appendices in the
Report Part 4: Insert the following dot-point Dot point added as documented.
13 Section To provide sufficient width for the installation
4.5.3 of a safety barrier system.


Report Part 4 GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C (Austroads 2017f, This will be postponed to the second
30 2017i, 2015m) need to reference examples of publishing milestone as no referenced
intersections and interchanges that achieve examples are in Report 30.
the Safe System principles.
Appendix Part 4: Add comment on pavement marking based The following paragraph has been inserted
A– Section on information in Table 2.1 in GRD Part 3. as the third paragraph in Section 3.7.1:
Report 3.7.1 It is good practice to adopt pavement
10 markings with the same skid resistance as
the rest of the road and not to use large
areas of pavement markings in traffic lanes.
This has benefits to all road users and in
particular motorcyclists.
Appendix Part 4: Add a new third paragraph to: The following paragraph has been inserted
A– Section Lighting provides additional benefits to road as the third paragraph in Section 3.7.2:
Report 3.7.2 users to assist in identifying intersection Lighting provides additional benefits to road
10 alignments, surface hazards and defects, users to assist in identifying intersection
presence of kerbing and roadside hazards. alignments, surface hazards and defects,
presence of kerbing and roadside hazards.
Appendix Part 4: First paragraph, second sentence: Amended as documented.
B– Section Larger vehicles (e.g. 35.4 m B-triple, 30 m
Report 3.2 super B-double, A-triples) may be selected as
11 the design vehicle, in which case they should
enter and depart from the intersection in the
correct lane/s.
Appendix Part 4: Types of cross-sections and lanes: Fourth Amended as documented.

B– Section paragraph: amend to read:
Report 4.5.2 While truck lanes are included in
11 AS 1742.12:2000, they have not been
implemented in Australia. However, it is
important to provide adequate lane widths for
trucks wherever there are a significant
number of heavy vehicles using an
intersection.
Appendix Part 4: Amend the first paragraph to read: Amended as documented.
C– Section Approach speeds to an intersection should be
Report 4.4 reduced to minimise the impact forces should
15 a crash occur. The design speed for traffic on
a priority road at intersections will also
depend on the alignment standard adopted
for the road in general (GRD Part 3).
Appendix Part 4: Third paragraph: add: Amended as documented.
D– Section Guidance on the roadside treatments is
Report 3.7.3 contained in GRD Part 6 (Austroads in
18 press).
Appendix Part 4: Urban intersections: First paragraph: add as Dot point added as documented.
D– Section fourth dot point:
Report 3.7.4 • where there are large numbers of
18 pedestrians waiting on traffic islands, it
may be necessary to provide barriers for
their protection.
Appendix Part 4: GTM Part 6 to reference the Safe System Refer to TMWG.
D– Section 2 Framework and consider the emphasis on
Report use of roundabouts.
18
Appendix Part 4: Add: Dot points added as documented.
D– Section
• the identification of potential conflict points
Report 4.2,
that might not be highlighted by the crash
18 Table 4.1
history


• potential for future innovations in road
safety, as well as traffic changes
Appendix Part 4: Appendices A, B and C: review content of Duplicated content has been removed from
D– Appendix Appendices A, B and C to identify material GRD Part 4 as follows:
Report A, B, C contained in GTM Part 6. Retention in GRD A.3.2 Traffic Management Considerations +
18 Part 4 not necessary. wide median treatment
A.5 Basic Turn Treatments (Type BA)
A.5.1 Rural Basic (BA) Turn Treatments
A.5.2 Urban Basic (BA) Turn Treatments
A.5.3 Basic Right-turn Treatment – Multilane
Undivided Road
A.6 Auxiliary Lane Turn Treatments (Type
AU)
A.6.1 Rural Auxiliary Lane (AU) Turn
Treatments
A.6.2 Urban Auxiliary Lane (AU) Turn
Treatments
A.7 Channelised Turn Treatments (Type CH)
A.7.1 Rural Channelised (CH) Turn
Treatments
A.7.2 Urban Channelised (CH) Turn
Treatments
A.8 Warrants for BA, AU and CH Turn
Treatments
A.9 Intersection Treatments – Rural Divided
Roads
A.9.1 Two Staged Crossing
A.9.2 Offset Right-turn Lanes
A.10 Intersection Treatments – Urban

Divided Roads
A.10.1 Basic Median Opening
A.10.2 Urban Offset Right-turn Lanes
A.10.3 Intersection Layouts with Service
Roads
A.10.4 Staggered T-intersections
A.11 Seagull Treatments
A.11.1 Rural Seagull Treatments
A.11.2 Urban Seagull Treatment
A.12 Wide Median Treatment
A.13 Channelised Intersections with
Right-turn Restrictions
A.14.2 Determining the Need for Auxiliary
Lanes
Deceleration turn lanes
Acceleration lanes
Auxiliary through lanes
Refer to Appendix A of this report for further

details on removed and retained content.
Appendix Part 4: Third paragraph: First sentence: to read Amended as documented.
D– Section The checking vehicle may be permitted to run
Report 5.3 over kerbs where there are no pedestrian
18 paths or standing areas and encroach on
adjacent lanes.
Appendix Part 4: First paragraph: re-order with first dot point to Amended as documented.
D– Section read:
Report 8.1.2 selection of appropriate speed limits.
18

2.2.4 GRD Part 4A
All recommendations from SRD6045 relating to Part 4A under the first publishing milestone are detailed in
Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: GRD part 4A updates under the first publishing milestone

Report Part 4A: Insert the following paragraph: New paragraphs added as documented.
13 Section In high-speed areas, or where the
6.1.2 intersection layout does not adequately
mitigate the head-on collision risk,
designers should consider
supplementing the raised median with a
barrier system.
When considering which barrier system
to install, designers should consider the
impact that this will have on the general
readability for all movements at the
intersection as well as the barrier’s more
obvious impact on the different sight
distance requirements.
Report Part 4A: Update note 3 to reflect the importance Note 3 amended to read as follows:
13 Section of a safety barrier even in a narrow Based on a 3.5 m wide turning lane and 2.5 m
3.1.2, median e.g. 1.5 m total width. residual median to accommodate pedestrians
Table 6.2 and traffic signals. It should be noted that a
safety barrier is still important to consider for
narrow medians, e.g. 1.5 m total width.

Report Part 4A GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C This will be postponed to the second publishing
30 (Austroads 2017f, 2017i, 2015m) need milestone as no referenced examples are in
to reference examples of intersections Report 30.
and interchanges that achieve the Safe
System principles.
Appendi Part 4A: Add to Left-turn and right-turn treatment Text added as documented.
xA– Section the consideration of – providing a
Report 2.1, uniform pavement surface along the
10 Table 2.1 turning path.
Appendi Part 4A: Add to Roadside areas – locating pits Text added as documented.
xA– Section outside of the travel paths.
Report 2.1,
10 Table 2.1
Appendi Part 4A: Second paragraph: new dot point: Text added as documented.
xB– Section At the intersection of arterial roads, a
Report 5.2.1 longer deceleration length is provided
11 when the volume of trucks is ≥ 10%.
Appendi Part 4A: Second paragraph add sentence: Text added as documented.
xD– Section Using values outside of the Normal
Report 1.3 Design Domain (NDD) requires
18 evidence that adopting the design value
will not compromise the safety
performance.
Appendi Part 4A: Amend to show minor road holding line Updated image for Figure 8.2 is shown in Figure
xD– Section closer to the edge of the through lane. 2.4 of this report.
Report 8.2.1, Updated image for Figure 8.3 and 8.4 is shown
18 Figures in Figure 2.5. of this report.
8.2, 8.3,
8.4

Figure 2.4: Updated image for Figure 8.2 in GRD Part 4A

Figure 2.5: Updated image for Figure 8.3 and 8.4 in GRD Part 4A
Appendi Part 4A: Second paragraph: second sentence: to Text amended as documented.
xD– Section read Stopping sight distance (SSD)
Report 9.2 should be available at all points on each
18 roadway and to the signal displays.

2.2.5 GRD Part 4B
All recommendations from SRD6045 relating to Part 4B under the first publishing milestone are detailed in
Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: GRD part 4B updates under the first publishing milestone

Report 8 Part 4B: Approach and Entry Treatments, based on The following has been added to
Section 4.5.2 report Appendix A.2 (A.2.3), refer to GRS Part the end of Section 4.5.12:
3 and GTM Part 5. For further information on approach
and entry treatments refer to the
Pending wider inclusion in the next scheduled Guide to Road Safety Part 3: Speed
revision, add the appropriate treatments as Limits and Speed Management
examples in the Appendices of both GRD (Austroads 2008) and the Guide to
Parts 3 and 4 (Austroads 2016i, 2017f) and Traffic Management Part 5: Road
add references to these appendices in the Management (Austroads 2020a).
Report 26 Part 4B: Design Principles Text added as new dot point as
Section 2.2 Target speed for lane sharing should be documented.
< 30 km/h (Note: the design methods available
to obtain this speed need to be developed);
otherwise, consideration should be given to
providing a separate facility for cyclists.
Report 26 Part 4B: Geometric Design paragraph 4.5.1 and The following has been added to
Section 4 paragraph 5.3.3 the end of Section 4.5.1 and 5.3.3:
Specific guidance on geometric methods to Specific guidance on geometric
achieve entry and circulating speeds of less methods to achieve entry and
than 30 km/h are still being developed and circulating speeds of less than
trialled. These are being assessed and will be 30 km/h are still being developed
included in future updates of this guide. The and trialled. These are being
use of vertical displacement devices is an assessed and will be included in
option to maintain reduced approach speeds, future updates of this guide. The
particularly in urban contexts. Attention is use of vertical displacement devices
drawn to the Guide to Traffic Management is an option to maintain reduced
Part 8: Local Street Management (Austroads approach speeds, particularly in
2020). urban contexts. Attention is drawn
to the Guide to Traffic Management
Part 8: Local Street Management
(Austroads 2020b).


Report 26 Part 4B: Roads with Shared Traffic First paragraph amended as
Section 5.3.4 Should be amended to refer to the target follows:
speed and Figure 5.1: Bicycle route through Roads that have low traffic speeds
single-lane roundabout – no bicycle facility, (e.g. is under the target speed of<
should provide an example of a layout to 30 km/h) and relatively low volumes
achieve vehicle speeds of less than 30 km/h (< 3000 vpd) generally enable
for the entry and circulating speeds. cyclists to safely share the road with
other traffic.
New figure added after Figure 5.1 to

show an example of a layout to
achieve vehicle speeds of less than
30 km/h:
To achieve a roundabout target
entry speed of 30 km/h, it necessary
to create an entry path radius of 20
m or smaller. An example of how
this could be achieved at an existing
local road roundabout is shown in
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2: Example of entry
alignment and central island on a
local road to achieve the target
speed.
Additional Figure 5.2 is shown in

Figure 2.6 of this report.
Figure 2.6: New Figure 5.2 in GRD Part 4B
Figure 5.2 source: Modified nearmap© (2015), ‘VIC, map data, nearmap©, Sydney, NSW.


Report 26 Part 4B: Multilane Roundabouts Text added as follows:
Section 5.3.5 Should be amended to recommend that if If vehicle speeds on the approach
vehicle speeds on the approach and circulating and circulating lanes cannot be
lanes cannot be reduced to the target speed of reduced to the target speed of
30 km/h, then separated facilities are to be 30 km/h, then separated facilities
provided, e.g. grade-separated crossing or are to be provided, e.g. grade-
off-road paths. It should be noted that separated crossing or off-road
achieving the target speed is unlikely when paths. It should be noted that
vehicles are able to track across the lanes, achieving the target speed is
effectively increasing the travel path curve unlikely when vehicles are able to
radius. track across the lanes, effectively
increasing the travel path curve
radius.
Report 26 Part 4B: Bicycle Paths and Shared Paths at Text added as follows:
Section 5.3.6 Roundabouts Kerb ramps can be used to ensure
Should include additional information on and a smooth transition between an on-
examples of acceptable methods, including road bicycle lane and an off-road
any design information, to provide the smooth path (and vice versa). The kerb
connection from the on-road bicycle lane to an ramps in this application may be
off-road path. longer and wider than traditional
footpath kerb ramps to ensure a
sudden change in travel speed or
direction is not required for the
cyclist to negotiate the transition.
The off-road path connection should
be located well in advance of the
roundabout so that, if the cyclist
decides to continue on-road, the
manoeuvre into the through lane

can be completed without disrupting
the traffic flow close to the entry into
the roundabout.
Appendix A Part 4B: Fourth paragraph (referencing motorcyclists), New dot points added as
– Report 10 Section 1.6 add dot points: documented.
• Using semi-mountable kerbs
• Minimising the use of aprons and apron lips,
and providing a larger central island
Appendix D Part 4B: Add new paragraph: New paragraph added as
– Report 18 Section 4.1 In designing a roundabout, appropriate entry documented.
speeds need to be adopted, and these speeds
depend on the function and types of approach
roads and the expected road users. As a
guide, for an appropriately designed
roundabout, the speed may be 50 km/h for an
arterial road and 25–30 km/h for a local
residential street.
Appendix D Part 4B: Amend to indicate surface slopes flatter than Figure 4.1 amended to show slopes
– Report 18 Section 6:1. flatter than 6:1.
4.4.1, Figure
4.1 Updated image for Figure 4.1 is
shown in Figure 2.7 of this report.

Figure 2.7: Updated image for Figure 4.1 in GRD Part 4B
Appendix D Part 4B: First paragraph: add new third dot point: Dot point added as documented.
– Report 18 Section 4.5.1 • potential for fatal and serious injury by
establishing angles at conflict points to
minimise the impact of a crash.
2.2.6 GRD Part 4C
All recommendations from SRD6045 relating to Part 4C under the first publishing milestone are detailed in
Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: GRD part 4C updates under the first publishing milestone

Report Part GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C (Austroads 2017f, This will be postponed to the second publishing
30 4C 2017i, 2015m) need to reference examples milestone as no referenced examples are in
of intersections and interchanges that Report 30.
achieve the Safe System principles.
2.2.7 GRD Part 5
Table 2.8.

Appendix A Part 5: Third paragraph additional dot point: Additional dot point added as
– Report 10 Section 4.2 • Drainage pits and covers are located clear documented.
of the travel lanes. Pit covers are
motorcycle-friendly and any gratings are
aligned transverse to the travel path and
have a skid resistant surface.

2.2.8 GRD Part 5A
Table 2.9.

Appendix A Part 5A: Add a new third paragraph: Additional text added as documented.
– Report 10 Section Poor skid resistance due to water on the
4.8: road impacts on motorcyclists including tyre
spray restricting vision, a motorcyclist
changing riding path, or evasive action when
water on the road is identified. A reduction or
loss of friction between surface and tyres
affects motorcycle stability when braking and
cornering.
Appendix A Part 5A: Add dot points: Additional dot points added as
– Report 10 Section • Locating drainage pits to minimise flows documented.
5.2.1: across an intersection
• Locating pits around corners, close to the
travel paths, particularly motorcyclists and
cyclists
• Avoid locating grated pits in braking areas
and turning paths
• The type of pit covers to be used types to
avoid the cover becoming a hazard.
2.2.9 GRD Part 6A
Table 2.10.

Appendix Part 6A: Add cross-reference to The following text has been added as sentence 2 of paragraph 2:
D– Section GRS Part 3 The speed environment needs to be considered when assessing
Report 18 2.2.2, (Austroads 2008a) for the provision of a footpath. Guidance on speed limits and speed
Table appropriate speed management is provided in the Guide to Road Safety Part 3:
2.1 limits. Speed Limits and Speed Management (Austroads 2008).
Appendix Part 6A: Amend the figure to This figure is in Section 5.6.2.
D– Section include batter and
Report 18 5.10, slopes of 1:5 (V:H). Updated image for Figure 5.14 is shown in Figure 2.8 of this report.
Figure
5.14:

Figure 2.8: Updated image for Figure 5.14 in GRD Part 6A

2.2.10 GRD Part 6B
All recommendations from SRD6045 relating to Part 6B under the first publishing milestone are detailed in
Table 2.11.
Table 2.11: GRD part 6B updates under the first publishing milestone

Appendix D Part 6B: • Re-order to have the following listed Dot points re-ordered as specified.
– Report 18 Section 1.4 first:
• ensure the safety of the travelling public by
providing appropriate roadside furniture and
lighting facilities
• in urban areas, apply appropriate urban
design concepts to improve amenity and the
safety of the area through which the road
passes
• improve visual amenity and safe travel by
appropriate design of urban and regional
features and landscaping


Appendix D Part 6B: Fourth paragraph: add cross-reference to GRD The following text has been added
– Report 18 Section 1.3.1 Part 1 and Part 2 for further information on the to the end of paragraph 4:
Safe System and design. Further information on the Safe
System in design is in the Guide to
Road Design Part 1: Objectives of
Road Design (Austroads in press).
Appendix D Part 6B: Add third paragraph: Texted inserted as documented.
– Report 18 Section 3.3.2 For further information on safety in design refer
to Health and Safety in Design Minimum
standard (NZTA 2016).
Appendix D Part 6B: Guide posts: third paragraph: add The following text has been added
– Report 18 Section 4.1.2 cross-reference to Safety Provisions for to the end of paragraph 3:
Floodways over Roads (Austroads 2015d). Further information can be found in
Austroads (2015).

3. Second Publishing Milestone
3.1 Scope
The scope of the second publishing milestone was to make the remainder of the suggested amendments to
the Guide to Road Design (GRD) as specified in Austroads (2020e). The amendments are based on the
following five reports:
1. AP-R515-16 – Infrastructure Improvements to Reduce Motorcycle Casualties (Report 10)
2. AP-T293-15 – Road Design for Heavy Vehicles (Report 11)
3. AP-T295-15 – Road Geometry Study for Improved Rural Safety (Report 15)
4. IR-232-15 – ‘Safe System Practice Amendments to the Guide to Road Design’ (Report 18)
5. AP-R560-18 – Towards Safe System Infrastructure Compendium of Current Knowledge (Report 28)
It is noted however that the SRD6045 Report states the implementation of Report 28 is covered by
Report 18. It is assumed that changes to the GRD relating to Report 28 are covered by Report 18.
Additionally, the scope of the second publishing milestone will also include the suggested amendments from
Project NTM6021 Safe Systems in the Guide to Traffic Management (Report 30). This was originally to be
included as part of the first publishing milestone, however, there are insufficient examples in Report 30 to
include in the GRD as per the suggested amendment, so additional work is required to complete this task.
3.2 Amendments Made under the Second Publishing Milestone
3.2.1 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-R515-16 – Infrastructure Improvements to

Reduce Motorcycle Casualties (Report 10)
Table 3.1 provides a collated list of the amendments to the GRD that have resulted from the outcomes of
Report 10.
Table 3.1: Second publishing amendments from report 10
Proposed actions from RDTF

Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 3 Section 5: Task No amendments required, as it has been confirmed as out of scope for this
Investigation to be Force project.
undertaken to determine confirmed
whether specific this is out
coefficient of deceleration of scope
values are required for
motorcycles.
Advice to be provided on
the variations in
motorcycle rider eye
height, object height and
headlight efficacy on
curves.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 3 Section 7: Endorsed Proposed New Section 7.1.1 Motorcycle Considerations
Add commentary on To safely negotiate a horizontal curve, a motorcycle is required to ‘lean’ and
motorcycle operational momentarily steer in the opposite direction to the desired direction
characteristics including (counter-steering) rather than simply turning the handlebars. The degree to
handling on a curve, which the motorcyclist is required to lean depends on their speed and the
counter-steering and lean radius of curvature. Depending on the approach and riding path a motorcyclist
affected by: chooses whilst negotiating a curve, a motorcyclist may be in a position where
• changes in alignment the lean of the motorcycle required to negotiate the curve at their operating
• curve radius speed results in the motorcyclist leaning into the curve to such an extent that
their body crosses the centreline and risks exposure to oncoming traffic. The
• visibility of the section of the road where this could happen is called the ‘head-on zone’. An
alignment being
experienced motorcyclist will select a riding path away from the head-on zone,
followed. however, some situations may arise (e.g. avoiding hazards in the lane) where
riding in the head-on zone is unavoidable.
Where there is little consistency in the horizontal curves on a road or route
(i.e. the curves have varying radii, crossfall and superelevation, rate of rotation
and curve length), each curve will be negotiated by a motorcycle differently
depending upon the motorcycle speed, curve radius and the curve length.
Changes in curve radius, direction or a change from single curves to reverse
curves or an isolated compound curve on a road section may result in a higher
demand on the motorcycle, particularly if the motorcyclist has selected a riding
path that is not suited to the curve. A change in riding path on a curve results
in braking and changing direction which increases the likelihood of a
motorcycle destabilising. Figure XXX below illustrates the different riding paths
for a compound curve of tightening radius and a constant radius curve. If the
presence of the compound curve is not known, a motorcyclist will select a
riding path for a constant radius curve and be required to change it using
increased angles and braking.
Figure XXX: Riding paths for compound curves and constant radius curves
Source: Austroads (2016b).


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
The risk of a motorcycle destabilising whilst on a curve is increased when
braking and/or sudden changes in riding paths occur. This can be due to a
motorcyclist entering the curve at a higher than suitable speed, perhaps as a
result of not being able to predict the road alignment. A curve that comes to a
motorcyclist as a surprise as a result of poor sightlines or inadequate signage
and delineation may result in braking/emergency braking or evasive action to
avoid surface hazard or vehicle (from the opposing direction) which has
crossed the centreline.
Part 3 Section 7.9: Endorsed, Part 3 Section 7.9:

Add commentary on the needs The following text has been added to the start of paragraph 3:
benefits of wider some Wider pavement on curves is particularly beneficial for motorcyclists as it
formations on curves for guidance allows a safe riding path to be selected which maintains a buffer to vehicles in
motorcyclists. As an on where the opposing lane.
example, the straight may on network
have a 0.5 m sealed this is
shoulder, lane width of important
3 m, the curve would
benefit from a 1.0 m
sealed shoulder and
3.3 m lane.
Part 3 Section 4.3.4: Part 3 Section 4.3.4:
Add commentary that The following text has been added to the end of paragraph 1:
wide sealed shoulders The widened shoulder also allows drivers, including motorcyclists, to adjust
should also be provided to their position in the through lane on the curve, particularly to avoid hazards,
allow an errant motorcycle when driving in the opposing lane is not safe.
to recover or use the
width to avoid a hazard in

the through lane.
Part 3 Section 3: Task No amendments required, as it has been confirmed as out of scope for this
Review the operating Force project.
speed model to see if it confirmed
reflects motorcycles. this is out
Research would need to of scope
be undertaken to
determine an operating
speed for motorcycles.
Identify differences in
speeds between
motorcycles and vehicles.
Part 3 Section 9.4:
The above review may
highlight where mitigation
measures may be
required to be
implemented to cater for
motorcyclists’ speeds
(e.g. overtaking lanes)


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4 Table 3.1: Endorsed Part 4 Table 3.1:
Expand this Table to New Section for Motorcycles added to Table 3.1 with road user considerations
include motorcyclists as a as follows:
separate road user.
Drainage pits and covers should be located clear of the travel lanes. Pit covers
Provide guidance on the should be motorcycle-friendly and any gratings are aligned transverse to the
location of linemarking, travel path and have a skid resistant surface.
pavement markers or Pavement markings located in braking, accelerating or turning locations will
service pit cover locations affect the stability of a motorcycle if they do not provide sufficient surface
on intersection texture.
approaches, departures Provide adequate clearance from carriageway to posts and poles (especially
and turning paths and the where motorcycles need to lean into curves).
effects these have on Do not use posts or rails which have sharp edges, protrusions or parts which
turning motorcycles. can entrap a motorcyclist.
Avoid kerbing colours which blend in or have low contrast, especially on
islands and protrusions.
Part 4B Section 4.5: Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.5.1
Include commentary that New text in paragraph 5 below:
whilst a motorcycle’s Whilst the speed of a motorcycle is not as effectively reduced by an entry
speed is not as effectively curvature compared to a passenger vehicle, the performance of motorcyclists
reduced by an entry at roundabouts is catered for by current design principles.
radius compared to a Alternative treatment to assist in the reduction of entry speed may also be
passenger vehicle, the considered, particularly on approaches with high speeds (Section 4.5.2).
performance of
motorcyclists at
roundabouts is catered for
by the current designs.

Part 4B Section 4.4 and Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.4.1
4.5.4: New text in paragraph 3 below in italics:
Include further Wherever possible, roundabout central islands should be raised to improve
reinforcement on the use visibility of the island for approaching drivers and to assist drivers to recognise
of semi-mountable kerbs that they are approaching a roundabout. This can be achieved by using
for the central island and kerbing, preferably semi-mountable kerb, which is more forgiving on errant
splitter islands. motorcyclists. Where raised central islands are provided on flat terrain, the top
of vegetation within the roundabout should not impede sight distance for a
driver entering the roundabout to a vehicle moving around the central island
measured to a car indicator height of 0.65 m (Figure 3.1). However, on very
large roundabouts, landscaping can be higher outside of areas over which a
driver’s sight lines pass.
Part 4B Section 4.5.4

New text in paragraph 3 below in italics:
Splitter island kerbing should be semi-mountable and light-coloured or painted
white. Splitter islands should be designed to direct vehicles onto the
roundabout so that the vehicle path is smooth, but at an angle which affords
the drivers comfortable sighting of approaching traffic, i.e. a good observation
angle. The right-hand edge of the entry curve, where it turns into the
circulating carriageway, should generally be tangential to the central island as
shown in Figure 4.3. However, in some cases the projection of the right-hand
edge of the entry curve may be permitted to:
• pass through a point about 1.5 m offset to the left of the central island to
accommodate the swept path of heavy vehicles on the pavement,
i.e. outside rear trailer wheels
• be aimed at a point in the central island; applicable where the roundabout is
used primarily by cars and cyclists and it is desired to further reduce entry
speeds so that drivers have a better opportunity to scan the roundabout for
cyclists.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4B Section 4.6.3: Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.6.3
Reinforce the preference but need New text in paragraph 7 below in italicst:
to reduce aprons and to be From a safety perspective, particularly for motorcyclist and cyclist safety,
apron lips in favour of careful implementing a larger roundabout to accommodate all vehicle movements on
larger roundabouts. with the circulating pavement is preferred over a small roundabout with raised
wording aprons. However, it is recognised that this is not always achievable due to the
larger footprint required, which may make it implausible for many brownfields
sites. All roundabouts should have road lighting and the provision of lighting in
accordance with AS/NZS 1158 becomes even more important, especially to
motorcyclists, if profiled encroachment areas are incorporated into the design.
Part 4B Section 4.10.1: Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.10.1:
Similarly to the New sub-section titled 'Roundabout crossfall and motorcycle stability' as
sub-section providing follows:
guidance on roundabout A motorcycle is required to lean on the circulating carriageway whilst
radius and crossfall for accelerating or braking. This places a higher demand for grip which can
heavy vehicle stability, a sometimes exceed the available grip. A ‘small’ (tight) radius for the roundabout
new sub-section is to be places a high demand on surface friction when the motorcycle is turning and
created to provide specific accelerating whereas a large radius places demand on surface friction given
guidance for motorcycles. that the motorcycle’s speed will typically be greater.
Motorcycle stability is Whilst turning, a leaning motorcycle places a higher reliance on a hazard free
reliant on consistent road surface with adequate and consistent surface texture, particularly where
geometry and surface there is also an adverse crossfall. Figure 4.15 below illustrates the reduction in
friction, and motorcycles ground clearance and greater likelihood of the motorcycle contacting the
may have to negotiate ground when adverse crossfall is implemented.
adverse crossfall, Crossfall should be adequate such that ponding of water does not occur on
superelevated crossfall the circulating carriageway of the roundabout. Surface water can present a
whilst passing through or high risk of destabilisation for motorcyclists as sufficient surface grip may not
turning on a roundabout. be available.
Figure 4.15: Motorcycle clearance on curves
Source: Austroads (2016).


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4B Table 6.1: Endorsed Part 4B Table 6.1:
Expand table to include New dot point under Pavement Markings:
guidance on the skid
• The skid resistance of pavement markings should be the same as the rest
resistance properties of
of the road. Pavement markings located in braking, accelerating, or turning
pavement markings
locations will affect the stability of a motorcycle if they do not provide
needed for motorcycles.
sufficient surface texture. Using large areas of pavement markings in traffic
Further, pavement
lanes is discouraged.
markings located in
braking, accelerating, or
turning locations will affect
the stability of a
motorcycle if they do not
provide sufficient surface
texture. Using large areas
of pavement markings in
traffic lanes is
discouraged.
Part 5A Section 4: Endorsed Part 5A Section 4:
Expand with a sub-section New subsection 4.1.1 titled 'Aquaplaning effects on motorcycles' as follows:
on the impacts The consequence of water ponding on the road surface resulting in
aquaplaning may have on aquaplaning is significant to the safety of motorcyclists. Whilst the loss of
the safety of control caused by aquaplaning may be corrected in a passenger vehicle, it is
motorcyclists. less likely to be corrected on a motorcycle. The controlling and stability
Considerations include: functions of a motorcycle are reliant on the friction between the tyres of the
• tyre spray affecting motorcycle and the road surface.
rider vision Furthermore, minimising water spray is particularly important to motorcyclists
• tendency to avoid a as tyre spray in the air and on a helmet visor can restrict vision, can result in a
hazard and possible change of riding path or evasive action, can reduce friction between the
swerve from travel path surface and tyres, can affect motorcycle stability when braking and cornering
and cause aquaplaning.
• reduction in surface
friction affects stability.
The above reinforces the
need to adequately
prevent and manage
aquaplaning.
Part 5A Section 6.2.8: Endorsed Part 5A Section 6.2.8:
Opening sentence states New text in paragraph 1 below in italicst:
that 'Access chamber Access chamber covers should be located outside of wheel paths to reduce
covers should be located hazardous surface conditions for motorcyclists and minimise ongoing
outside of wheel paths to maintenance impacts. Access chamber covers should have the same level of
minimise ongoing skid resistance as the pavement. Additionally, the lids have the potential to
maintenance impacts.' work themselves loose and create an ongoing noise issue for those in
Expand on this section adjacent dwellings.
regarding inappropriate
placement of access
chamber
covers/manholes being
hazardous to
motorcyclists. Further, the
covers are to have a skid
resistant surface.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 6 Section 6.1.3: Endorsed Part 6 Section 5.1.3:
The SRD 6045 report – but This has already been included in Section 5.1.3.
suggest that Section 6.1.3 check it Some suggestions, about the types and placement of motorcycle underrun
has been included in a hasn’t protection, have not been addressed and could be included in phase 2 of the
separate project to already update of Part 6. These include:
expand the guidance on been
• where barriers are likely to be struck
suitable barrier systems included in
and features for the Part 6 • where to start and end MPS on a curve
motorcyclists. It is update • types of underrun protection
suggested this is checked project • photographs.
to ensure sufficient
information is provided on
the above, as well as
additional guidance on
where barriers are most
likely to be struck by
motorcyclists and where
to start and end under-rail
treatments on a curve.
3.2.2 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-T293-15 – Road Design for Heavy
Vehicles (Report 11)
Report 11.
Proposed actions from

RDTF direction Amendments to GRD
SRD6045
Part 3 Section 4.3.3: Needs to be Part 3 Section 4.3.3:
This section states ‘...a 1.0 m carefully worded This section states ‘...a 1.0 m sealed shoulder is often used on roads
sealed shoulder is often used or remain as is. carrying AADT over 2000 vpd, with 10% heavy vehicles.’
on roads carrying AADT over
2000 vpd, with 10% heavy
vehicles.’ This has been changed from 1.0 m sealed shoulder to sealed
shoulder at least 1.0 m wide as per the following text:
It is proposed to change 1 m To minimise the effect of wind erosion on shoulder material, a sealed
wide seal to full seal of shoulder at least 1.0 m wide is often used on roads carrying AADT
shoulder over 2000 vpd, with 10% heavy vehicles.
Reasoning: Part 3 Section 4.2.6:

• QTMR indicates full sealed Note (7) added to Table 4.5 for consistency with the above changes:
shoulders in its table of rural A sealed shoulder at least 1.0 m wide is recommended on
road widths (for AADT > roads carrying AADT over 2000 vpd, with greater than
250), regardless of HV% 10% heavy vehicles.
• VicRoads has similar widths
to AGRD03, based on road
classification (M, A, B, C)
and AADT. For the lower
classifications, it specifies
1.0 m seal shoulder on
tourist and freight routes.
• MRWA has shoulders
sealed full width for all rural
roads.


SRD6045
Part 3 Section 4.7.1: Endorsed, Part 3 Section 4.7.2
This paragraph states ‘...For needs Median Width Table 4.15 Urban median widths:
medians less than 20 m wide commentary on The last item Recovery area 20.0 m should be removed.
or with large traffic volumes on median and
high-speed roads, road safety batter slopes
barriers should be considered when HV New Part Section entitled Rural Median Widths, in place of the
to minimise cross median volume is ‘high’ 3 paras commencing 'Studies by Stamatiades …' New text as
crashes. Furthermore, where (i.e. 10% HV or follows:
medians (i.e. > 4 m wide), are more), including Previous guidance has indicated that medians greater than 20 m in
not safely traversable, due to when barriers width provide enough room for virtually all errant vehicles to come
their cross-sectional grade or are adopted. safely to rest without encroaching into the opposing carriageway.
vegetation, provision of safety However, recent research (Austroads Improving Roadside
barriers should be considered Safety 2014) indicates that some vehicles were found to travel in
in the same way as for other excess of 50 m across roadside areas. Consequently, the advice
roadsides.’ now is that all rural medians should have a barrier system installed.
If one is to be omitted, then this decision needs to be justified using
It is proposed to include a a risk assessment. AGRD Part 6 describes a risk assessment
statement that a safety barrier procedure that could be used. Designing barriers for heavy vehicles
should only be omitted after an is described in 5.3.13 of GRD Part 6, but note that, although heavy
appropriate risk assessment vehicles are not contained by Test Level 3 (TL3) barriers, higher
has been completed. Provide containment barriers can cause extensive damage to cars, and so
cross-reference to Part 6. are generally only installed where the consequence of a heavy
vehicle leaving the road are catastrophic. Again, a risk assessment
Reasoning: should be carried out to determine the use of such a barrier.
Previous guidance has
indicated that medians greater
than 20 m in width provide

enough room for virtually all
errant vehicles to come safely
to rest without encroaching
into the opposing carriageway.
However, recent research
(Austroads Improving
Roadside Safety 2014)
indicates that some vehicles
were found to travel in excess
of 50 m across roadside areas.
Consequently, the advice now
is that all rural medians should
have a barrier system
installed. If one is to be
omitted, then this decision
needs to be justified using a
risk assessment. AGRD Part 6
describes a risk assessment
procedure that could be used.
Designing barriers for heavy
vehicles is described in 5.3.13
of GRD Part 6, but note that,
although heavy vehicles are
not contained by Test Level 3
(TL3) barriers, higher
containment barriers can
cause extensive damage to
cars, and so are generally only
installed where the
consequence of a heavy
vehicle leaving the road are
catastrophic. Again, a risk
assessment should be carried
out to determine the use of
such a barrier.


SRD6045
Part 3 Section 7.5.1: Endorsed, Part 3 Section 7.5.1:
Consideration should be given however, unsure The following text has been added to the end of dot point 3:
to revising the text to indicate if 10% of HVs is and the radii ratio should be no more than 1.25:1
that where there is a a ‘significant
significant proportion of heavy proportion’, USA
vehicles (i.e. 10% or more), classify as 30%. Paragraph 3 now reads as follows with new text in italics:
compound curves be strongly The change in friction demand between the curves of different radii
discouraged and that a single More guidance if and cross-fall combinations can cause instability problems for
circular curve be provided. required (forced) motorcycles and trucks (or any other vehicle with a high centre of
to use them. gravity) and should be restricted to no more than a 25% increase.
Riders of motorcycles are not able to anticipate the change in friction
if they are unable to perceive the change in curve radii and cross-
fall, which is common with compound curves. If deceleration is likely
to be required for trucks, allow sufficient distance for drivers to react
and decelerate. However, where there is a significant proportion of
heavy vehicles (10% or more), compound curves are strongly
discouraged, and a singular circular curve be provided instead.
Part 4A Section 2.2.2: Endorsed Part 4A Section 2.2.2
This section discusses the
need to keep downhill grades The following text has been added to Paragraph 2:
on approaches of side roads to
intersections to a maximum of High friction surfacing typically has a life of 8–12 years
5% (3% is desirable) to limit (ARRB 2018). Maintenance of the selected treatment is critical to
the effect on stopping ensure effectiveness in assisting the stopping ability of a vehicle.
distance. It states that high Refer to Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 3:
friction surfaces or transverse Pavement Surfacings (Austroads 2009) for further information.
grooving on the downhill
approaches to such
intersections should be
provided where these grades
cannot be achieved.
It is suggested that this

paragraph be extended to
include additional information
on the maintenance of high
friction surfaces or transverse
grooving.
Part 6 Commentary 2.1: Endorsed Part 6 Commentary 1.1:
Insert text in Table C2.1 to This is now Commentary 1 in the new Part 6 update. New text in
advise that grades of 6% or italics. Table C1.1 already has reference to both uphill and downhill.
greater have a significant Table C1.1 already includes passing bays, descending lanes, safety
impact for HVs downhill as ramps and arrester beds. Brake rest areas has been added to Table
well as uphill travel. C1.1 as a vertical alignment consideration.
Expand Table C2.1 to include:

consideration should be given
to provide strategically located
brake rest areas when there
are very long downhill road
lengths
Part 6 Commentary 2.3: Endorsed Part 6 Commentary 1.3:
Expand Table C2.3 to include This is now Commentary 1.3 in the new Part 6 update.
other road design variables 3 rows added to Table C1.3 as follows outlined in Figure 3.1 in this
such as road cross-section, report.
clear zones, embankments
and safety barriers.


SRD6045
Figure 3.1: Updated information for Table C1.3 in GRD Part 6

Part 6B Section 1.5.2: Endorsed Part 6B Section 1.5.2:

It is indicated that truck New text in paragraph 6 below in italics:
parking areas, as part of Fatigue-related crashes are frequent on rural roads and the
jurisdictions rest area policy provision of well-located, well-designed and attractive roadside areas
and strategy, should be can encourage drivers to stop, thereby reducing the incidence of
considered in design. It is these crashes. Depending on jurisdictional policy, the roadside areas
proposed to include a may include informal stopping places, truck parking areas, rest areas
reference to Austroads and service centres that provide appropriate amenities for the
Guidelines for the Provision of particular route and circumstances. Refer to Austroads Guidelines
Heavy Vehicle Rest Area for the Provision of Heavy Vehicle Rest Area Facilities
Facilities (AP-R591-19) (Austroads 2019) for further guidance on truck parking and truck rest
areas.
Part 6B Section 3.4.4: Endorsed – but Part 6B Section 3.4.4:
Wording to be strengthened to should also look Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 now reads (additional word in italics):
indicate that acceleration lanes at the likelihood Acceleration lanes should be considered to enable heavy vehicles to
should be provided where the of heavy enter the road.
rest areas are used by drivers vehicles being
of heavy vehicles. able to pick a
gap and HV
volume/through
traffic warrants

3.2.3 Amendments Made to GRD from AP-T295-15 – Road Geometry Study for
Improved Rural Safety (Report 15)
Report 15.

SRD6045
Part 3 Section 7.1: Endorsed, but It is proposed that no change is made as guidance on successive
Guidance to be included needs to be curve geometry is already in the text. Refer to ‘Part 3 Section 7.1’
regarding a higher curve discussed by document attached for the discussion on this topic.
frequency associated with the RDTF.
increased risk of run-off-road
casualty crashes. A road with Note 200 m to
2.5 curves per km had double 600 m radius
the crash rate of a straight road. curves in
high-speed
Figure A 4 provides an environments
indication of the range of are
appropriate curve radius overrepresented
combinations for curve in crashes.
sequences (from the Appears that a
Appendix C Report) it is few international
assumed the figure is showing studies are
individual curve radius vs the arriving at same
range of curve radii. conclusion.
3.2.4 Amendments Made to GRD from IR-232-15 – Safe System Practice

Amendments to the Guide to Road Design (Report 18)
Report 18.
Proposed actions RDTF

Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 1 Section 3.1: Endorsed With the recent updates to the Guide to Road Design Part 1, ‘Safe System’ is
It is proposed to mentioned 55 times throughout the document, with a whole section dedicated to
strengthen the the Safe System approach and explaining Safe System assessments. This is
emphasis on safety believed to be adequate guidance.
outcomes. Following Section 2.2.1 ‘The Safe System Approach’ highlights that Safety is a primary
the Safe System objective in road design, and is pursued in accordance with the Safe System
approach should be approach, which is a guiding philosophy that has been adopted by leading road
the highest priority safety nations and has been a foundation of the road safety strategies and action
recognising plans adopted in both Australia and New Zealand since 2004. This approach has
competing priorities. been reiterated in the current strategy documents for each country (prepared by
the Australian Transport Council 2011 and Ministry of Transport 2010).
In Section 2.2.3 ‘Designing for Safety’ it states The Safe System approach
encourages road designers to consider more deeply the implications of their
emerging design solution; by designing a road environment that limits crash
impact speeds and which acknowledges the limits of the human body, road
designers can achieve greater improvements in road safety.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
In Section 3.1 ‘Definition of Road Design’, the following paragraph talks about
balancing the competing priorities All road design is a compromise between the
ideal and what is a reasonable solution. It needs to consider the objectives of the
project, the objectives of road design and the context of the site. Due to the
nature of the design process, the final design solution cannot generally be
considered as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ but rather as more or less efficient (in terms
of moving traffic), safe (in terms of fatal and serious injury crash reduction), or
costly (in terms of construction costs, life-cycle costs and environmental
impacts).
In Section 3.3 ‘Objectives of Road Design’ it clearly states that Road designs
should incorporate the Safe System approach which ensures that the needs of
all road users are considered in all aspects of the design process. The objectives
of new and existing road projects should be carefully considered to achieve the
safest possible road while balancing the level of traffic service provided,
whole-of-life costs, flexibility for future upgrading or rehabilitation, and
environmental impact.
Part 1 Section 3.4.2: Endorsed A new reference has been made in this section to network wide design and
Proposed to consistency so this should be adequate:
strengthen the Austroads have developed a network-wide design approach (refer to Austroads
emphasis on Guide to Road Design Part 2: Network-wide Design) which provides further
consistency of guidance on developing consistent network-wide safety plans to support safer,
cross-section to self-explaining roads for all road users. This methodology uses existing risk
assist in a providing a assessment tools (including both AusRAP and ANRAM) to pre-calculate a
consistent predicted number of FSIs and Star Rating for a cross-section design. It can be
appearance to drivers used to prepare corridor vision standards that assist in developing design
for the same responses at a network level. Decisions made at that level will need to be
classification of road. embedded in project scope requirements to inform subsequent detailed design.
Part 1 Section 5.1: Endorsed In 4.2.1 ‘Phase 1 – Establish the preferred solution’, new text in italics
Include commentary The establishment of a preferred solution comprises the following steps:
that scoping should
• Review the design brief and clarify the aims of the project.
include a problem
statement that • Define the study area.
encompasses all the • Identify options within that area.
identified issues to be • Undertake initial studies.
mitigated or resolved.
• Develop the concept design for each option.
All projects should be
assessed (audited) • Analyse the options (including a Safe System Assessment and Road Safety
against Safe System Audit).
principles. • Recommend a preferred option.
Then on the following page of the Guide under ‘Analyse the Options’ include the
following red text:
This should be done in accordance with road agency requirements but will
typically involve the use of a decision-making aid, for example, a value
management workshop. The output from this will be an options comparison
report typically detailing the road agency requirements and reporting against
them for each option. A Safe System Assessment and a Road Safety Audit
should be undertaken on each design option to ensure well informed decisions
are being made, which consider the road safety risk associated with the design
and alignment with the Safe System approach. See Section 2.2.3 for definitions
of these evaluations.
Part 2 Section 1.2 Endorsed In Part 1 Section 2.2.5 ‘Strategic Fit’, include the following dot point (in italics):
Include a reference to As well as satisfying local requirements, the objectives for a road project should
Part 2 Section 1.4 to support transportation outcomes required by governments (federal, state and
emphasise the local) and the community. The required outcomes may be reflected in:
importance of safety
• government policies
• road safety strategies
• investment strategies
• planning schemes
• network operation plans.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 2 Section 2.3 Endorsed Additional words are in italics.
Emphasise the need In 4.4.2 EDD, it states that
to fully assess the Use of values within the EDD should be supported by a documented risk
risks associated with assessment that:
the use of EDD
• justifies and recommends the values to be adopted for various design
parameters
• demonstrates that adoption of lower values is in the overall community interest
with respect to investment strategies, road safety strategies, and other
strategies that relate to roads and road networks
• verifies that responsibility for the use of values within the EDD is taken
corporately by the relevant road agency and is not placed on an individual
designer.
Two paragraphs later in the document it states:
The use of EDD may be limited to particular parameters (e.g. sight distance)
where research has demonstrated that the adoption of EDD will not result in
significantly higher crash rates. While the use of design values from within the
EDD may not be preferred, it may be necessary in certain circumstances, usually
for existing roads in constrained situations.
Recommend replacing this sentence with:
The use of EDD may be limited to particular parameters (e.g. sight distance)
where research has demonstrated that the adoption of EDD rather than NDD will
nevertheless result in some improvement in crash rates, and a risk assessment
is undertaken to justify the decision.
Part 2 Section 2.4.1 Endorsed This is now in Part 1 Section 4.1.1 Functional Classification and Use (additional
Insert a reference to words in italics):

Network Design for The standards adopted for road projects have traditionally been influenced by
Road Safety the functional classification of the road. For example, roads of higher
(Stereotypes for classification had a major role in the transportation task and therefore required a
Cross-sections and higher standard of design. Roads fall into a hierarchy of functional classes
Intersections): User ranging from major arterial roads to local access roads.
Guide (AP-R619-20) The recognition of more sustainable forms of transport in urban areas
to improve the link (Section 2.3.2) have led to consideration of a road user hierarchy in addition to
between the traditional road hierarchy. The road user hierarchy indicates the relative
cross-section priorities to be accorded to road user categories in the operations of the road
element width and network. In accordance with this, pedestrian activity is often identified for priority
safety. consideration on some sections. This needs to be integrated and balanced with
priorities arising from the prevailing functional road classifications.
Rural roads of higher functional class generally cater for a higher (though
normally still modest) proportion of longer-length journeys, and it may be
appropriate to select higher design standards for such roads so that the quality of
service is more appropriate to the longer trip duration. Crash risk and Safe
Systems principles should be considered before any decisions are made.
Austroads has defined a system of functional classification for rural roads
(Table 4.1).
In rural areas, the Class 1 and 2 roads in Table 4.1 are generally freeways or
major highways that have a high standard for two-way two-lane roads. They are
usually roads of national or state importance in terms of communication and the
economy. Class 3 roads would generally be main roads of a satisfactory but
lesser standard than the Class 1 and 2 roads.
Austroads has also adopted a rural route numbering hierarchy to assist road
user guidance. This hierarchy identifies arterial routes as M, A, B or C routes
and, similar to the classification in Table 4.1, is also related to the route
characteristics. This is discussed in more detail in the Austroads (2016b and
2019c).
The functional classification of urban roads (refer to Table 4.1) is usually less
clear than that of rural roads, as urban roads generally are flanked by dense
development that requires frequent access at the boundary of the road. Historical
requirements for kerbside parking and other uses (e.g. public transport routes or
bicycle routes) further complicate functional definitions.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Most urban arterial roads continue to function as major through traffic routes, but
the management of these roads often requires space to be dedicated to public
transport or bicycle use in preference to private car travel. There is also a trend
on inner suburban roads for speed limits to be set at more appropriate Safe
System speed limits to address pedestrian safety issues, while sections of
inner-city streets (formerly through arterial routes) are sometimes converted to
pedestrian areas or shared zones. This is discussed in more detail in the Guide
to Traffic Management. Consequently, the function of particular sections of road
may change over time in accordance with community values.
The Movement and Place Framework recognises that roads and streets serve
two primary roles, namely: to facilitate the movement of people and goods: and
to act as places for people. Defining the function of a road within this framework
will determine how it should be managed (see Figure 4.1). (Further detail can be
found in the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 4).
The framework enables more effective management of infrastructure and
operational issues to prioritise the road user’s journey needs, reduce potential
user conflicts and facilitate safe and timely journeys with minimum disruption. For
example, a motorway has the prime function of rapidly moving high volumes of
people and goods, with no, or little, pedestrian activity. A road which has high
numbers of pedestrian movements, such as in commercial or retail centres, has
an emphasis on the land use interacting with the road, while still providing for
some traffic flow.
In developing projects to address road network objectives, the movement and
place framework provides a useful way to consider how the different road user
requirements can be addressed with the selection of the appropriate
cross-section components or treatments.
Source: Transport for NSW (2018).


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 2 Section 3.3 Endorsed This was previously ‘Factors Affecting Design Decisions’. In the recently updated
Table 3.1 lists some Part 1, this section was absorbed into ‘Section 2.2 Network Considerations and
roads by constructed Outcomes’ and ‘Section 3 Principles and Objectives of Road Design’ which
form and some by discusses the Safe System approach, as well as network wide design and
function. To assist in defining corridor standards.
the selection of a
design speed, the
typical classification
or function of the
road with the
constructed form may
be useful in
reinforcing the
consistent approach
to road function
speed and road form.
It is proposed to
insert a reference to
Network Design for
Road Safety
(Stereotypes for
Cross-sections and
Intersections): User
Guide (AP-R619-20)
to improve the link
between
cross-section
element width and
safety.
Part 2 Section 5.2.2 Endorsed Part 3 Section 5.2.2
A range of driver The following text has been added to the end of paragraph 2:
reaction times is The impacts from adopting lower parameters should be considered and
contained in supporting treatments may be required to ensure the adopted sight distance is
Table 5.2. The appropriate. Refer to A.3.4 for further information if adopting driver reaction times
adoption of reaction in the EDD.
time values less than
the desirable values
should be assessed
with the road
conditions, some of
which are outlined in
Table 5.2.
Additional
commentary to be
inserted in adopting
these lower
parameters. The
impact this may have
should be assessed
and consideration be
given to providing
supporting
treatments.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 3 Section 9.4: Not No amendments required, as this is not supported by the RDTF.
Figures 9.1 and 9.2 endorsed
show the slow lane
merge into the
overtaking or faster
lane. From the
experiences in
Sweden, where the
fast lane merges into
the slow lane, this
merge arrangement
to assist in the speed
differentials of the
two lanes could be
considered.
Part 3 Section 10.2: OK, noting Part 3 Section 10.2:
Designers should that The following dot point has been added to the 4th paragraph:
consider the safety of ANRAM
• to ensure a safe continuous path for bicycles if lanes are already present on
all road users, with etc. doesn’t
the approaches
reference to cyclists, currently
when determining the assess risk New 6th paragraph has been added as follows:
appropriate for cyclists. Austroads have developed a network-wide design approach (refer to Austroads
cross-section. It is Guide to Road Design Part 2: Network-wide Design) which provides further
proposed to insert a guidance on the implementation of the cross-section design to enable road
reference to Network managers, planners and designers to achieve improved safety outcomes, with
Design for Road the application of consistent standards, as far as practicable, along a road
corridor to support safer, self-explaining and predictable roads for all road users.
Safety (Stereotypes
for Cross-sections
and Intersections):
User Guide
(AP-R619-20) to
improve the link
between
cross-section
element width and
safety.
Furthermore,
additional
commentary to be
provided that
additional bridge
width should be
provided to carry a
kerbed footway on
the bridge and on the
approaches only
where it is provided
on the rest of the
corridor or is
considered
reasonable
future-proofing.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4 Section 4.4: Endorsed Part 4 Section 4.4:
Table 4.2: Table 4.2: The following text added to third point:
It is proposed to Treatments can be implemented on the minor leg to reduce speeds and provide
expand the cues of an impending intersection. The latter is particularly important where an
Paragraph 3 of Road intersection is located after a long stretch of high-speed road with a straight
Design alignment and a driver may be less alert due to low driver workloads and inputs.
Considerations by
emphasising the
importance of speed
management,
provision of
appropriate visual
clues and
assessment of driver
workload. The
approach speeds on
all legs are key
considerations.
Treatments may also
be implemented on
the major legs, and
commentary on
approach speeds
should be included.
Refer to
speed-reducing
treatments on the
minor leg of an
intersection. The
approach speed on
all legs of an
intersection is
important, and this
emphasis is
inconsistent with the
Safe System
principles.
It is proposed to Paragraph 1 now reads as follows:
expand this section to Approach speeds to an intersection should be reduced to minimise the impact
have a greater forces should a crash occur. Chosen and managed to reduce the risk of crashes
emphasis on Safe and prevent serious injury or death to people in the event of a crash. Achieving a
System tolerances. Safe System of road travel requires an understanding that the human body is
Commentary to be vulnerable and unlikely to survive an impact at a speed of more than 30 km/h
added to reinforce (e.g. there is a 10% chance of a fatality during a collision between a car and a
the need to consider pedestrian or cyclist for an impact speed of 30 km/h). This is known as the Safe
approach speeds, to System threshold. The Safe System threshold for side impact and head-on
minimise the impacts crashes between two cars is 50 km /h and 70 km/h, respectively. Speeds of
of collisions when below 50 km/h may be appropriate at intersections as this is the speed above
setting a design which the chance of death rapidly increases in the event of a crash involving two
speed through the vehicles. Probability of a fatal outcome rises exponentially above the Safe
intersection. System threshold and these human tolerances need to be considered for the
design speed but should also be credible, particularly the expectations of
motorists based on the road layout.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4 Section 4.5.1: Endorsed Part 4 Section 4.5.1
General Paragraph 1 A reference to the SRD2068 project has been included in the first paragraph as
states: …’A further shown in italics text below:
consideration in The selection of cross-section elements for roads is an iterative process that
determining a considers road function and safety, environmental impact, economy and
cross-section, is that aesthetics in order to determine the most appropriate arrangement for the
roads of the same particular situation. A further consideration in determining a cross-section, is that
function or roads of the same function or classification should, ideally and where practicable,
classification should have consistent cross-sections to assist in reinforcing the road function to
have consistent drivers. Guidance on cross-sections for specific road stereotypes can be found in
cross-sections to Austroads (2020c). The allocation of space to various road users is an important
assist in reinforcing factor and is discussed further in AGTM Part 4 (Austroads 2016b) and AGTM
the road function to Part 6 (Austroads 2019).
drivers.’
It is proposed to
insert a reference to
Network Design for
Road Safety
(Stereotypes for
Cross-sections and
Intersections): User
Guide (AP-R619-20)
to improve the link
between
cross-section
element width and
safety.
It is proposed to This section has been re-written as follows:
expand this section to Adequate care should be taken in the design of an intersection, particularly
reinforce that roadside areas, as there can be a heightened risk of off-road crashes associated
roadside areas at these locations. The roadside area includes the areas that are used by
include the areas pedestrians (e.g. footpaths). Risks are associated with a vehicle colliding with a
used by pedestrians person or an object within the roadside area.
and that clear zones Safe System thresholds discussed in Section 4.4 detail that a pedestrian is
at intersections are unlikely to survive an impact from a car at 30 km/h. Furthermore, occupants of a
important due to vehicle are unlikely to survive a collision with a tree or pole at an impact speed of
potential conflict with 30 km/h or greater.
pedestrians. A brief Treatments can be implemented to protect pedestrians in the roadside, such as:
discussion on • management of the road to minimise the likelihood of encroachment into the
treatments of roadside by motor vehicles
intersections for
• location (or relocation for existing facilities) of the pedestrian/bicycle facility
different road users
away from the road to where it has a lower probability of encroachment by
will be included,
errant vehicles
which will then
reference GRD Part 6 • provision of a road safety barrier. The deflection of the barrier should be taken
for more into account, and the barrier should be placed as close as practicable to the
comprehensive vehicle travelled way.
roadside design Batters and drains adjacent to rural intersections should be flat and smooth to
guidance. enable the safe passage of errant vehicles. Further considerations relating to
roadside design are covered in Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design,
Safety and Barriers (Austroads 20210b).


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Bus Facilities in The following text has been added to the end of the last paragraph:
Medians – It is Median barriers can assist to prevent errant vehicles from colliding with
proposed to expand pedestrians, as well as prevent pedestrians from crossing the road at unsafe
this section to locations. Refer to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6: Roadside Design,
discuss what Safety and Barriers (Austroads 2020b) for further guidance on undertaking a risk
examples of assessment to determine whether a barrier system is required for bus facilities
pedestrian protection within a median. A pedestrian maze can also prevent pedestrians from crossing
may be considered, the road without adequately checking for on-coming vehicles. It should be
and then provide ensured that no obstacles within the maze which may present as an obstruction
reference to GRD to all users (e.g. wheelchairs).
Part 6.
Bus Stop Location – New dot point 4 as follows:
It is proposed to add • The pedestrian travel paths to access and leave from the stop and waiting
a dot point to areas and the need for any safety barrier protection. Opposing bus stops
consider the safety should be offset on single carriageways to allow for any future pedestrian
implications for crossing facilities. Placement of the bus stop should ensure it is on the
passengers departing departure side of the future crossing.
buses and waiting for
them. Bus stops need
to be considered in
terms of pedestrians,
not just vehicles.
Bus Stop Layout – it The following paragraph has been inserted as a new paragraph 3:
is proposed to add a Where a bus stop is in close proximity to a pedestrian crossing, fencing may be
paragraph to required to discourage undesirable crossing movements. Bus stops should have
consider the clear and well-defined connectivity to footpath networks where possible. Further,
movement of bus where a bus stop is located close to an intersection with a history or high risk of
passengers to and off-road crashes, consideration should be given to pedestrian protection such as
from the bus stop a barrier system.
(e.g. travel paths,
crossing locations) as
well as protecting
pedestrians at the
bus stop.
General – This The following paragraph has been inserted as a new paragraph 2:
section is to be Roadside development is an indicator of where concentrations of activity, such
expanded to further as pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles entering or leaving the road, and turning traffic,
explain the may occur. These factors, particularly property access, can influence the speed
relationship between at which drivers travel. By considering roadside development, safety and amenity
the road can be balanced with the mobility function (operating speed) of the road. For
stereotype/operating further information regarding road stereotypes refer to Austroads (2020c).
speed vs the type
and frequency of
property access
arrangements.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Table 8.1 – proposed Text in italics has been added to 'Access to roadway crossings' feature:
to expand 'Access to Ideally a vertical element should be provided as physical separation between
roadway crossings' to vehicles and pedestrians, which can take the form of a kerb. Where a road or
include the use of street is kerbed a kerb ramp is essential to assist pedestrians in moving between
measures to protect the footpath and roadway. Kerbs present a significant barrier to many people;
pedestrians, people in wheelchairs cannot mount a kerb at all and may have difficulty using
e.g. barriers, ramps if they are too steep. People with limited vision need an indication of good
clearances from places to cross and of the direction in which they should travel. These should be
vehicles. provided at mid-block pedestrian crossings, at all intersections, and at other
Furthermore, to points where access is needed to and from a footway. A kerb also assists in
assist in the identifying the location for pedestrians to wait before undertaking their crossing.
identification and Barriers may be required to protect pedestrians at high-risk locations waiting to
maintaining cross the roadway.
separation, the Where there are no kerbs, a drain usually borders the roadway, and it is
approaches to the necessary to provide a culvert or other bridging to enable pedestrians to access
crossing point should the roadway at crossing points.
have a vertical
element, e.g. kerb.
Introduction – It is Text in italics has been added to paragraph 1:
proposed to The traffic management considerations for the use of pedestrian and cyclist
emphasise that crossings are provided in AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2013a) with some information
cyclists are contained in Appendix C. From a road safety perspective, cyclists are considered
vulnerable road users as vulnerable road users. As such cyclists cannot be catered for the same way
and cannot be looked as cars can. The Safe System impact threshold for a cyclist is 30 km/h, so and it
at in the same way as is critical that the correct devices are provided with adequate protection or
cars. Further separation and that they are designed in a uniform and consistent manner. Safe
commentary is to be System aligned treatments should reduce injury severity, crash likelihood and
provided on how to exposure to conflicts for cyclists.
deal with cyclists in a
Safe System.
Part 4 Appendix Endorsed Part 4 Appendix C1.3:
C1.3: The following new paragraph has been added to the end of this section:
Refuges away from Protection for pedestrians and cyclists within the storage area of a refuge should
intersections – be considered if there is a higher risk of being struck by an errant vehicle due to
additional the operating speed, type of road, clearance from vehicles, horizontal geometry,
commentary to be steep grades, or visibility.
included to consider
protection for cyclists
and pedestrians from
errant vehicles,
taking into account
the operating speed
of the road, type of
road, visibility.
Part 4B Section Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.5.2:
4.5.2: New paragraph 2 as follows:
Commentary to be The Safe System threshold for a pedestrian or cyclist crash is 30 km/h (i.e. there
added on appropriate is a 10% chance of a fatality at when vehicles impact a pedestrian or cyclist at
entry speed under a 30 km/h). Therefore, the design should aim for roundabout entry speeds of
Safe System. 30 km/h or below unless separated bicycle facilities are provided, or where there
are high numbers of pedestrians on adjacent footpaths or crossing the road at
the roundabout.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4B Section Endorsed Part 4B Section 4.5.1
4.5.3: This has already been covered under the first publishing milestone. Refer to the
It is proposed to paragraph below that was inserted at the end of Section 4.5.1 as per
cross-reference to recommendations under Report 26:
speed reduction Specific guidance on geometric methods to achieve entry and circulating speeds
treatments and of less than 30 km/h are still being developed and trialled. These are being
effectiveness of the assessed and will be included in future updates of this guide. The use of vertical
treatments. displacement devices is an option to maintain reduced approach speeds,
particularly in urban contexts. Attention is drawn to the Guide to Traffic
Management Part 8: Local Street Management (Austroads 2020b).
4.5.4: Paragraph 3:
Paragraph 1 dot point Where a splitter island provides shelter for pedestrians, the approach speeds
4 states that splitter may determine whether additional protection is required for the pedestrians.
islands should be
sufficient to provide
shelter for the
pedestrians. It is
proposed to include
commentary that
approach speeds
may indicate the type
of protection that
should be
considered.
4.6.3: Paragraph 3 new text shown in italics:

Commentary to be In cases where the volumes of a particular heavy vehicle type (checking vehicle
included about how or over-dimensional vehicle) are extremely low on particular turning movements,
encroachment area it may be appropriate to provide encroachment areas (paved areas behind the
should not be part of kerbs) which allow a smaller width of circulating carriageway to be used.
the pedestrian path Over-dimensional vehicles are vehicles that have greater than the maximum
or pedestrian storage legal dimensions and may be permitted to operate on major arterial routes under
area. specific permit conditions, which usually require the use of an escort vehicle.
Roundabouts on major arterial routes need to cater for these vehicles, and
because their size can vary greatly, it is not essential that such vehicles be able
to traverse the intersection without encroaching onto the central island area
and/or the approach splitter islands. However, care must be taken to ensure
encroachment areas should not be included in areas used by pedestrians, such
as pedestrian paths. Encroachment areas should not be within pedestrian
storage areas such as within splitter islands, medians walkthroughs and kerb
ramps.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
4.6.3: Paragraph 6 new text shown in italics:
Figure 4.12 shows Figure 4.11 illustrates encroachment areas that may be provided to cater for a
encroachment areas checking vehicle or an over-dimensional vehicle that is turning right or left at a
on a roundabout. A roundabout. Appropriate delineation is required to discourage use of the
40–60 mm difference encroachment areas by passenger vehicles. This may be additional pavement
between pavement markings around the encroachment area or using a pavement in the
level and the raised encroachment area that contrasts with the pavement in the circulating lane.
encroachment area is
required to
discourage
passenger vehicles
but may be a hazard
for road users such
as motorcyclists and
bicyclists.
It is proposed to add
further guidance that
appropriate
delineation may
minimise this issue.
For example, use of
contrasting
pavements provides
a visual cue.
Part 4B Section 5.1: Endorsed Part 4B Section 5.1:

Proposed to include Paragraph 2 new text shown in italics:
further commentary A number of studies have shown that roundabouts increase the risk of crashes
on appropriate speed for cyclists and this needs to be taken into account when considering the
under a Safe System adoption of a roundabout treatment at an intersection. Cyclists are involved as
and catering for all circulating vehicles in a high percentage of entering/circulating vehicle crashes
road users, including and this is likely to relate to entry speeds and motor vehicle drivers’ scanning
pedestrians and behaviour on the approaches. The Safe System threshold for crashes involving
cyclists. pedestrians and cyclists is 30 km/h. Where entry or circulating speeds are above
30 km/h consideration should be given to providing separate facilities for cyclists
to negotiate a roundabout.
5.2.2: New dot point 3 as follows:
It is proposed to add • appropriate separation and/or protection for pedestrians waiting within splitter
a third bullet as there islands
is a need to consider
pedestrian
separation/protection
when they are waiting
on the splitter islands.
Part 4B Section 5: Include as Part 4B Section 5.1:
Include option New paragraph 3 as follows:
grade-separated where From a purely safety perspective, clear separation is the preferred option,
designs like significant however it is acknowledged that the ability to construct infrastructure for grade
underpasses and volume of separation of pedestrians and cyclists is limited due to cost, negative impacts on
bridges for pedestrians surrounding urban space and potentially requiring pedestrians and cyclists to
pedestrians and and cyclists undertake significant and inconvenient diversions to cross the road. Alternative
cyclists. and no treatments such as bicycle or shared paths may be considered to negotiate
other roundabouts. Newer roundabout treatments such as implementing raised
options platforms on approaches to both reduce speeds but also provide raised crossing
exist, points have been trialled in low speed, urban environments with positive results.
however,
not many
are built.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 4C Section Endorsed Part 4C Section 2.3.4:
2.3.4: but note New paragraph 3 as follows:
Commentary to be the term The detailed design should be reviewed for alignment with Safe System
included that the clear zone principles and that safe roadside areas are provided for all interchanges. Further
detail design should should not guidance on specific safety treatments can be found in Guide to Road Design
be reviewed, be used. Part 6: Roadside Design, Safety and Barriers (Austroads 2020).
including the
roadside areas for
appropriate clear
zones to ensure the
principles of a Safe
System are being
considered.
Part 4C Section Endorsed Part 4B Section 5:
4.1.1: Paragraph 5 re-written as follows:
Proposed to Structures that pass over a divided road may have central piers in the median,
strengthen the however, from a safety point of view the median should be free of such
wording of having a obstructions as these become a hazard to drivers. Although it is preferable to
median free of have the median free of piers, it may not always be achievable from a practical,
obstructions such as economic or aesthetic point of view. Where a pier in the median is unavoidable,
piers from a safety protection such as a safety barrier should be considered. Similarly, when the
point of view. median requires the installation of or already contains a continuous safety
barrier, there is little point in attempting to dispense with a pier in the median.
The barrier for pier protection may be different to the continuous barrier and may
affect median or shoulder widths.
Part 4C Section 4.2: Endorsed Part 4C Section 4.2:
It is proposed to Paragraph 3 new text shown in italics:

strengthen the The conventional type of structure over divided roads is a two-span deck-beam
wording in this type bridge, which may be continuous for economy. The bridge pier on the
section to reinforce median may need protection by safety barriers, which will need to be sufficiently
the need for strong to prevent trucks from crashing into the pier. Where this is the case, an
assessment of bridge assessment should be undertaken to determine the need and level of protection
pier protection. required to ensure structural integrity of the bridge is maintained in the event of a
crash. The form of structure adopted will depend on the circumstances at the
particular site and the particular road conditions being serviced. This is a matter
for determination by bridge designers for the site being designed.
Part 4C Section Endorsed Part 4C Section 10.3:
10.3: Paragraph 7 new text shown in italics:
It is proposed to The left-turn radius can be made much larger than the right-turn, particularly in
expand Paragraph 7 rural locations, since the orientation of the ramp will favour this movement. In
to include: The urban situations it is usually not desirable to provide a large radius for left-turning
selection of the movements because of the increased crash risk in general and particularly with
radius should be respect to pedestrians and cyclists. The selection of the radius should be
determined after determined after considering the other road users and the possible conflicts.
considering the other
road users and the
possible conflicts.
Proposed to include Pedestrians should be prohibited from entering urban freeways by the erection of
guidance that a level standard signs at the ramp terminals with the minor road. However, provision
area behind safety should be made for drivers of broken-down vehicles to reach the help-telephones
barrier systems is safely along the shoulders of freeways. In providing the help-telephone,
encouraged to consideration should also be given to the travel path available along the roadside
provide pedestrians area for these drivers to reach the help-telephones with some clearance from the
from broken-down passing traffic. A level area behind safety barrier systems is encouraged to
vehicles with a provide pedestrians from broken-down vehicles with a separate travel path from
separate travel path the freeway.
from the freeway.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Proposed to The main issue that should be addressed in deciding whether cyclists may use
strengthen the advice freeways is road safety. On high-speed roads, particularly those with high traffic
about the volumes, cyclists should be separated from motor traffic. This may be achieved
appropriateness of by providing a separated path dedicated to cyclists (and pedestrians) within the
cyclists on same corridor. However, the policy with respect to cyclists using freeways varies
high-speed roads between jurisdictions. Where cyclists are permitted to use a freeway, it is
important that they are provided with information, guidance and road conditions
which enable them to use it safely. It is inappropriate for cyclists to use the
normal traffic lanes of freeways and so the safe use of these facilities by cyclists
is predicated on providing:
Commentary to be A consistent lighting strategy should be delivered along a road to provide
added: Lighting continuity of the road standard for the road users to understand. Where there is
should be applied lighting at closely spaced interchanges (e.g. < 1 km between the ramp taper
consistently along a ends) consideration should be given to providing continuous lighting along the
road, e.g. at main carriageway between the interchanges as drivers’ eyes may not fully adjust
intersections, to to the change in lighting conditions.
provide continuity of
the road standard for
the road users to
understand.
Part 6 Section 4.5.1 Endorsed Old Section 4.5 now replaced by new Risk Assessment in Sections 1, 2 and 3.
Proposed to expand
Paragraph 4 to talk
about goal of
reducing FSIs.
Part 6 Section 4.5.2 Endorsed Old Section 4.5 now replaced by new Risk Assessment in Sections 1, 2 and 3.
Quantitative
Assessment – It is
proposed to add a
new paragraph to
discuss the reduction
of FSIs being the
goal of the Safe
System, and hence
should be included in
the assessment.
Currently, the text

infers that the primary
benefit in selecting
one design over
another is indicated
to be based on
reduction in future
crash costs. The
reduction in FSIs is
the focus of a Safe
System and so this
should be the primary
benefit.


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 6 Section 6.5.2: Endorsed – Part 6 Section 5.1.3
Paragraph 4 states but need to
This section now states:
‘Situations where a rethink
road safety barrier wording as ‘Situations where a road safety barrier may be appropriate are:
may be appropriate not feasible • roads that have an operating speed of 30 km/h or greater and where a
are: • intermediate to review pedestrian or bicycle path is close to the road.’
and high-speed roads every road.
where a path is within There are already words about risk assessment in the previous paragraphs.
the clear zone’
The intermediate
speeds (70 km/h to
90 km/h) are higher
than the Safe System
compliant collision
speed of 30 km/h.
It is proposed to
re-write this to state
‘Situations where a
road safety barrier
may be appropriate
are:
• roads that have an
operating speed of
30 km/h or greater
and where a path
is within the clear

zone. It is noted
that there are
practicability
challenges with
this, and the
omission of a road
safety barrier will
require justification
through a risk
assessment.’


Amendments to GRD
SRD6045 direction
Part 6A Section 3.3 Endorsed Part 6A Section 2.3
It is proposed to New paragraph 3 as follows:
expand on Paragraph There are different types of cyclists, such as recreational or commuter. Paths
2 by discussing that may have a different intended and anticipated use based on the type of cyclist
commuter and using the facility. This will in turn affect the operating speed of the path.
recreational users Commuter and recreational users can travel at very different speeds, which can
can travel at very have safety implications. Consideration should be given to segregate users
different speeds, travelling at varying speeds where safety issues are apparent. However, it is
which can have noted that the provision of a separate path for the higher speed cyclists is not
safety implications. always a practicable solution.
There is a need to
consider the type of
cyclist from an
intended and
anticipated use and
operating speed; we
should segregate
where there are
safety implications.
Providing some
distinction that can be
identified by the
cyclists may assist in
the operation of the
path, e.g. this could
be through the sign
characteristics placed
along a path.
Part 6A Appendix D: Endorsed Part 6A Appendix D:
The Bicycle Safety New sub-section titled 'D.11 Roadsides' provided as follows:
Audit checklist • Are run off areas provided that are free of hazardous objects?
provides guidance on
• Are run off areas traversable (i.e. the gradient is not too steep)?
elements to be
considered and • Are safety barriers provided if run off areas are not traversable and/or free of
includes the hazardous objects?
alignment and
cross-section
elements. It is
proposed to include
'run-off areas' as a
new element to be
considered.
4.1.3: Sub-section 'Lighting Poles' Paragraph 3 re-written as follows:
Paragraph 3 currently Frangible poles are the preferred approach for mounting luminaires; however,
states ‘Road road agencies may have their own policy regarding the use of frangible poles for
agencies may have a mounting the luminaires for the lighting of major roads
policy to use frangible (e.g. freeway/motorway/highway/controlled access roads).
poles for mounting
the luminaires for the
lighting of major
roads.’
It is proposed to
strengthen this
wording to suggest
frangible type poles
are preferable at the
start of the sentence,
and then refer to the
road agency policies.

3.2.5 Amendments Made to GRD from NTM6021 Safe Systems in the Guide to
Traffic Management (Report 30)
The SRD6045 recommendation from Report 30 was that GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C need to reference
examples of intersections and interchanges that achieve the Safe System principles. However, there were no
examples that could be referenced from Report 30. Guidance was requested from the RDTF on possible
treatments, with feedback being received that it could be difficult to obtain RDTF agreement. This
recommendation is discussed further in Table 5.1.

4. Suggested Improvements for Other Guides
4.1 Suggested Improvements for the Guide to Road Safety

Section 4.1 provides recommendations from SRD6045 for the Road Safety Task Force to consider for
inclusion into the Guide to Road Safety.
4.1.1 Guide to Road Safety Part 3: Speed Limits and Speed Management
1. Consider including advice that jurisdictions consider setting speed limits in areas of high pedestrian
activity, especially areas frequented by older pedestrians, with reference to the high injury risk of older
pedestrians.
2. Consider including advice that jurisdictions consider the implementation of a program of improving safety
at intersections through reductions in speed limits and the use of traffic calming measures such as
plateaus.
4.2 Suggested Improvements for the Guide to Traffic Management

Section 4.2 provides recommendations from SRD6045 for the Network Task Force and Traffic Management
Working Group to consider for inclusion into the Guide to Traffic Management.
4.2.1 Guide to Traffic Management Part 4: Network Management Strategies
Consider reinforcing that implementing Safe System principles early in the planning process achieves the
best possible balance between the multiple objectives. Good planning and design set the foundation for a
safe road environment, which will protect people from death and serious injury. Transport and land-use
planning influences the design and location of roads, how the road network is used, and what infrastructure
safety investments are required.
Comment: This is listed for information only to close out recommendations from SRD6045. It is noted that
references to the Safe System have been included in the 2020 update of AGTM Part 4 (Austroads 2020a).
4.2.2 Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Link Management
Consider including the following treatments as speed management options (refer to AP-R449-14 Appendices
for information on each treatment including description, benefits, implementation issues, cost, treatment life):
1. rural thresholds – transition zones
2. vehicle-activated traffic signals
3. speed limits – rural routes and mid-block
4. road narrowing – rural routes and mid-block
5. weather-activated signs – rural routes and mid-block
6. advance warning signs – intersections
7. vehicle-activated signs – intersections
8. perceptual countermeasures – intersections

9. transverse rumble strips – intersections

10. reduction in speed limits – intersections
11. variable speed limits – intersections
12. lane narrowing – intersections
13. increasing the prominence of the intersection – intersections.
these treatments have been included in the 2020 update of AGTM Part 5 (Austroads 2020b).
4.2.3 Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and

Crossings
1. Consider providing guidance on motorcycle lanes and jump start areas at intersections. Currently this is
informally allowed in some states by changes to legalise lane filtering.
2. Warrants for BA, AU and CH turn treatments are based on passenger vehicle AADT and cater for the
needs of passenger vehicles. The warrants are based on turning volumes and road user protection
combined. Motorcycles are vulnerable, particularly when stored in a through lane to turn right or left. This
vulnerability may also lead to a motorcyclist feeling pressure to make a turn quickly and not wait for a
suitable gap. Consider including guidance for providing protected turn lanes to separate motorcycles
from a through lane when stopped to turn. Warrants could be based on vehicle AADT, motorcycle AADT,
sight distances, operating speed, percentage of heavy vehicles and crash history on the link.
3. Consider emphasising safety benefits of roundabouts within the current guidelines; promote their
application ahead of priority intersections.
4. Consider discouraging cross-intersections in favour of T-intersections.
5. Consider further discouraging right-left staggered T-intersections in favour of left-right staggered.
AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2020c) already states there is a higher crash risk for right-left staggered T-
intersections.
6. Consider referencing the Safe System Assessment Framework in the process for selection of types of
intersections. The selection should aim to achieve the goal of meeting the Safe System principles.
SSAF is now referenced in AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2020c).
7. GRD Part 4 Table 4.2 has been updated to include the following ‘Treatments can be implemented on the
minor leg to reduce speeds and/or provide cues of an impending intersection. The latter is particularly
important where an intersection is located after a long stretch of high-speed road with a straight
alignment and a driver may be less alert due to low driver workloads and inputs’. Consider updating
GTM to ensure consistency.
8. Consider including the identification of possible conflict points when selecting an intersection type. An
assessment can be carried out of methods to eliminate or reduce the impact of conflict points that are
unable to be eliminated, to reduce the impact on vehicle occupants should a crash occur. Include the
identification of potential conflict points that might not be highlighted by the crash history.
this is already in AGTM Part 6 (Austroads 2020c) Section 3.5.1.

9. Consider including advice that jurisdictions consider the implementation of a program of improving safety
at intersections through reductions in intersection complexity, including the elimination of right turns
requiring gap acceptance decisions. (Reduced complexity can be achieved by full control of turns
(i.e. elimination of right turns requiring gap acceptance decisions), elimination of roads intersecting at
acute angles, and the use of roundabouts.)
10. Table 3.4 discusses various intersection options but does not discuss median turning lanes. Median
turning lanes have been identified as a low-cost treatment to minimise the incidence of rear-end crashes
and should be an addition to the existing table.
11. Table 3.4 provides a discussion on the signalisation of intersections, including a list of bullet points
summarising the key features of such a treatment. It is suggested that the following bullet point be
added: has the potential to lead to an increase in rear-end crashes, whilst reducing the incidence of
other intersection crash types.
12. Section 3.3.2: Selection Process outlines a process to determine the most appropriate type of
intersection. The considerations strongly emphasise network performance with recognition that the
presence of a bicycle network may also influence the type of intersection. The process could be
amended to consider the safety objectives, particularly relating to bicycle safety, followed by the network
objectives.
13. Table 3.5 indicates the presence of cyclists as a key factor in the selection. The information needs to
include reference to suitable treatments for cyclists, depending on motor vehicle speeds. Treatments
such as grade-separation or, if an off-road path is selected, consideration be given to providing a
suitable crossing of the approach legs of the roundabout.
14. Section 4.4.2: Options are provided for consideration where cyclists travel through a large single-lane or
multilane roundabout with no provision of specific facilities, which may be acceptable under some
circumstances, or an on-road facility (Figure 4.6). The guidance should relate to the design speed of the
roundabout and, if the design speed is > 30 km/h, separated off-road facilities should be considered. The
provision of off-road facilities would also need to consider costs for installation and maintenance,
particularly in rural or remote areas.
4.2.4 Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking Management Techniques

1. Consider providing guidance on maintaining a 'buffer' between a parked car and the through lane, and
particularly if a bicycle lane is present. The buffer would be more critical in areas with high traffic
volumes and/or roads with reduced lane widths.
2. Entering and leaving on-street parallel parking spaces from a through traffic lane introduces slow-moving
and reversing movements that may conflict with the traffic flow. These movements would need to be able
to be identified by other drivers so they can take appropriate actions. It is suggested that clearances be
provided from 0.5 m for a 60 km/h road, increasing to 3.0 m where the speed limit is 90 km/h or greater.
Consider suggesting that parking, with the resulting manoeuvres required to enter and leave a parking
space, be on roads with lower speed limits.
3. On-street parking for people with disabilities creates conflict for the person entering or leaving the
vehicle. Access to the footpath is not always obvious or provided in a location that requires travel along
the road. Preferably, spaces would be provided in a nearby off-street car park, or traffic speeds managed
to reduce the likelihood of conflicts occurring. Consider suggesting that on-street parking is provided on
low-speed roads and when there is no other off-street car park available.
Comment: It is noted that AGTM Part 11 (Austroads 2020d) Section 8 currently states off-street parking
should be provided for the majority, with on-street parking for those with needs for high levels of access,
such as people with disabilities.

4.2.5 Guide to Traffic Management: Set

1. Consider including guidance on the management of a floodway when in operation.
2. Consider reviewing the Case Studies contained within Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed Use Arterials
(AP-T330-17) to determine if updates required to GTM set.

5. Recommendations Requiring Further

Investigation or Endorsement
Table 5.1 below provides a list of items that were investigated as part of this project; however, a resolution
was not reached. Further suggestions have been provided to address these matters.
Table 5.1: Items requiring further investigation, research or endorsement
RDTF
Proposed actions from SRD6045 SRD6219 outcome
direction
Part 3 Appendix A3.2: Endorsed Refer to Appendix B which provides additional
This section will be re-written to better explain the commentary to explain the different tables
assessment, including a definition of what is contained within Appendix A3.2 with suggestions.
meant by capability, case types, case codes and It is suggested that Appendix A3.2 is retained in its
case descriptions. current form.
Part 4B Section 3.3: %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
This section states that the stopping sight discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
distance for trucks (SSDT) should also be resolution RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
provided at intersections used by a significant
volume of large or special vehicles. Further research and investigation could be
undertaken to determine and come to a consensus

It is proposed to quantify 'significant volume of on an appropriate number. It is suggested that
trucks'. As a proportion, 10% can be specified, using a proportion is retained until such number is
however, an indicative number may need to be agreed upon. Refer to Appendix C for commentary
provided on high volume roads where the on truck volumes from Austroads (2002).
proportion of HVs is less than 10% but volumes
are high.
Part 4C Section 5.2.1: %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
Exit Ramps Paragraph 2 indicates that single exit discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
ramps should be widened to two lanes, where the resolution RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
truck exit speed is less than 50 km/h at the nose
and if a significant number of trucks use the Further research and investigation could be
ramp. undertaken to determine and come to a consensus
on an appropriate number. It is suggested that
Entry Ramps Paragraph 2 indicates ‘For an entry using a proportion is retained until such number is
ramp with a single lane at the nose, and with a agreed upon. Refer to Appendix C for commentary
design speed of the through roadway of 80 km/h on truck volumes from Austroads (2002).
or more, a second entry ramp lane should be
provided when: the length of a single-lane ramp
exceeds 300 m on a level grade and a truck
accelerating from rest at the ramp terminus would
not be expected to reach 50 km/h at the nose,
and a significant number of trucks’
It is proposed to quantify 'significant volume of

trucks'. As a proportion, 10% can be specified,
however, an indicative number may need to be
provided on high volume roads where the
are high.

RDTF
direction
Part 4C Section 5.2.2 %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
It is indicated that loop-lane widths should allow discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
for a semi-trailer and car; where there is a resolution. RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
significant percentage of heavy vehicles the width Should be
should be able to accommodate the largest discouraging Further research and investigation could be
design vehicle side-by-side with a single unit loop ramps undertaken to determine and come to a consensus
truck. on freeways on an appropriate number. It is suggested that
for high HV using a proportion is retained until such number is
It is proposed to quantify 'significant volume of volumes, agreed upon. Refer to Appendix C for commentary
trucks'. As a proportion, 10% can be specified, poor safety on truck volumes from Austroads (2002).
however, an indicative number may need to be outcomes.
provided on high volume roads where the
are high.
Part 4C Section 8.3.4: %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
This section states ‘For ramps that have a discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
significant number of trucks and an uphill grade resolution. RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
(> 3%), two lanes might be considered on the
ramp to enable light vehicles to overtake trucks.’ Further research and investigation could be
are high.
Part 4C Section 9.3: %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
It is indicated that the selection of the gradient of discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
ramps should take account of the high number of resolution. RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
trucks that use the ramps.
Further research and investigation could be
It is proposed to quantify 'significant volume of undertaken to determine and come to a consensus
trucks'. As a proportion, 10% can be specified, on an appropriate number. It is suggested that
however, an indicative number may need to be using a proportion is retained until such number is
provided on high volume roads where the agreed upon. Refer to Appendix C for commentary
proportion of HVs is less than 10% but volumes on truck volumes from Austroads (2002).
are high.
Part 6 Appendix D: %HV needs This matter was not resolved as part of this project
Examples of Clear Zone Calculations Example 2 discussion/ and was omitted from this project following a
– In the worked example a reference is made to resolution. RDTF meeting on 18/02/2021.
the need to consider the clear zone should the
volume of HVs be significant. Further research and investigation could be
are high.
Part 3 Commentary 7: Endorsed Consensus was not received on the
Proposed to carry out a review of Austroads recommendations to include the outcomes of
project ST1427 Improving Roadside Safety and ST1427 Improving Roadside Safety into GRD
ensure consistency in the GRD. Part 3 to replace Commentary 7. Refer to
Appendix D for the suggested inclusions to be
included when consensus is reached.

RDTF
direction
Part 3 Commentary 8 Endorsed The figure from the previous edition of GRD Part 3
An old edition of GRD Part 3 provided a figure for is different to the figure in GTM Part 5. Refer to
provision of facilities for cyclists in relation to Appendix E to see the two figures. It is suggested
traffic speed and volumes. The figure suggests a that the RDTF, NTF and TMWG agree on one
range of speeds and volumes and treatments figure to be contained in GTM Part 5 and
suitable for cyclists. The separation of cyclists referenced in GRD Part 3.
from motor traffic due to the differences in speed
and vehicle mass follows the Safe System
principles. The determination from the RDTF from
the SRD6045 report was to review the need for
the retention of the figure. It is now suggested to
review the application of this figure.
Part 4A Section 8.2.4: Endorsed Consensus was not received on the
Commentary to be included to state that the recommendations:
channelised left-turn treatment is the preferred • Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 with Figures 8.3 and
option over the basic left-turn treatment and 8.4 regarding Auxiliary Left Turn Treatments
auxiliary left-turn treatment. (AUL) should carry a warning (or be deleted)
• That Section 8.2.4 carries a reference to GTM
Part 6 in the selection of left turn treatment
options
• TMR’s offset rural CHL treatment be included in
the Guide (in 8.2.4)
• The footnotes in the references to TMR be
removed (mainly in respect to Basic Left Turn
Treatments (BAL) and Channelised Left Turn
Treatments (CHL)
Refer to Appendix F for commentary on the above
recommendations. It is suggested that action is
taken on the above (one way or the other) once
consensus is reached.
Part 4A Appendix A.1: Endorsed Refer to Appendix G which highlights existing
Commentary to be added to describe how the guidance within the GRD on EDD and safety
use of EDD should not compromise safety. implications. To be discussed by RDTF as
resolution not reached.
GRD Part 4, 4A and 4C Could be There are no specific examples from Report 30
Need to reference examples of intersections and difficult to that will be referenced in Part 4, 4A and 4C. No
interchanges that achieve the Safe System obtain RDTF amendments will be made. Examples to be
principles. agreement. included in future revisions if obtained.

6. Conclusion
Following the review of the research reports under SRD6045, amendments to the Guide to Road Design
have been undertaken to incorporate the relevant road safety outcomes identified in the research reports.
Emphasis was on new inclusions relating to improvements to practice focusing on Safe System, the
vulnerability of motorcycles and specific heavy vehicle road design considerations.
Further consideration for additional research or direction is required for some items. A series of suggested
improvements have been provided for the Guide to Road Safety and Guide to Traffic Management.
The process developed within Section 1.3 should be used for all future research projects to incorporate new
findings into the Guides.

References
Austroads 2002, Geometric design for trucks: when, where and how?, AP-R211-02, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Providing for road user error in the safe system, AP-R460-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, Methods for reducing speeds on rural roads: compendium of good practice, AP-R449-14,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014c, Model national guidelines for setting speed limits at high-risk locations, AP-R455-14,
Austroads 2014d, Investigation of key crash types: run-off-road and head-on crashes in urban areas: final
report, AP-R450-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014e, ‘Safety operational and environmental impacts of changes to speed limits’, IR-223-14,
Austroads 2014f, Assessment of the effectiveness of on-road bicycle lanes at roundabouts in Australia and
New Zealand, AP-R461-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014g, Improving roadside safety: sumamry report, AP-R437-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015a, Safe system in the planning process, AP-R488-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015b, Improving the performance of safe system infrastructure: final report, AP-R498-15,
Austroads 2015c, Road design for heavy vehicles, AP-T293-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015d, Safety provisions for floodways over roads, AP-R481-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015e, Road geometry study for improved rural safety, AP-T295-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015f, Investigation of key crash types: rear-end crashes in urban and rural environments,
AP-R480-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2015g, ‘Safe system practice amendments to the guide to road design’, IR-232-15, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads, 2015h, ‘Updating the guide to road safety part 9: roadside hazard management’, IR-237-15,
Austroads 2016a, Safe system assessment framework, AP-R509-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016b, Safe system roads for local government, AP-R518-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016c, Achieving safe system speeds on urban arterial roads: compendium of good practice,
AP-R514-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016d, Speed reduction treatments for high-speed environments, AP-R508-16, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2016e, Older road users: emerging trends, AP-R530-16, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2016f, Guidance on median and centreline treatments to reduce head-on casualties, AP-R519-16,
Austroads 2016g, ‘Road safety audit and road safety engineering toolkits: usage survey 2011-16’, IR-250-16,
Austroads 2016h, Infrastructure improvements to reduce motorcycle casualties, AP-R515-16, Austroads,

Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017a, Safe system infrastructure on mixed use arterials, AP-T330-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017b, Lapping of guardrail terminals, SBTA 17-001, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017c, Proximity of safety barriers to batter hinge point, SBTA 17-002, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017d, Bicycle safety at roundabouts, AP-R542-17, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2017e, Improved railway crossing design for heavy vehicles, AP-R549-17, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2018, Towards safe system infrastructure compendium of current knowledge, AP-R560-18,
Austroads 2019, Embedding Safe System in the Guide to Traffic Management, AP-R595-19, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020a, Guide to traffic management part 4: network management strategies, AGTM04-20,
Austroads 2020b, Guide to traffic management part 5: link management, AGTM05-20, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2020c, Guide to traffic management part 6: intersections, interchanges and crossings,
AGTM06-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2020d, Guide to traffic management part 11: parking management techniques, AGTM11-20,
Austroads 2020e, Inclusion of recent road safety research into the guide to road design: summary of
research, AP-R610-20, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2021, Guide to road design part 1: objectives of road design, AGRD01-21, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads in press, Update to the guide to road design parts 1, 2 and 8 and minor updates to other parts
Department of Main Roads 2005, ‘Chapter 4: application of design principles and guidelines’, in Road
planning and design manual, Department of Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 2016, ‘Volume 3: Guide to road design’, in Road
planning and design manual, second edn, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads,
Brisbane, Qld.

Appendix A Removal of Duplication in GRD

Part 4 Appendix
Table A 1 details the updates to GRD Part 4 Appendix to remove duplicated material that is already
contained in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings
(Austroads 2020c).
Table A 1: Update to GRD part 4 appendix A, B and C
Updated
GRD
GRD Part 4 GTM Part 6 Action
Part 4
heading
A.1 Basic Forms of Intersection Retain in GRD Part 4 A.1
A.2 Types of Turn Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 A.2
A.3 Intersection Selection Retain in GRD Part 4 A.3
A.3.1 General Considerations Retain in GRD Part 4 A.3.1
A.3.2 Traffic Management 3.3.7 Wide Median Treatment Delete from GRD Part 4
Considerations + wide – Traffic Management
median treatment Considerations

A.3.3 Layout Considerations Retain in GRD Part 4 A.3.2
A.4 Road Design Retain in GRD Part 4 A.4
Considerations for
Intersections
A.5 Basic Turn Treatments 3.2.2 Basic Turn Treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
(Type BA) (Type BA)
A.5.1 Rural Basic (BA) Turn 3.2.2 Rural basic (BA) turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Treatments treatments
A.5.2 Urban Basic (BA) Turn 3.2.2 Urban basic (BA) turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Treatments treatments
A.5.3 Basic Right-turn Treatment 3.2.2 BAR treatment – Delete from GRD Part 4
– Multilane Undivided multilane undivided road
Road
A.6 Auxiliary Lane Turn 3.2.3 Auxiliary Lane Turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Treatments (Type AU) Treatments (Type AU)
A.6.1 Rural Auxiliary Lane (AU) 3.2.3 Rural auxiliary lane (AU) Delete from GRD Part 4
Turn Treatments turn treatments
A.6.2 Urban Auxiliary Lane (AU) 3.2.3 Urban auxiliary lane (AU) Delete from GRD Part 4
A.7 Channelised Turn 3.2.4 Channelised Turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Treatments (Type CH) Treatments (Type CH)
A.7.1 Rural Channelised (CH) 3.2.4 Rural channelised turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Turn Treatments treatments (Type CH)
A.7.2 Urban Channelised (CH) 3.2.4 Urban channelised (CH) Delete from GRD Part 4
A.8 Warrants for BA, AU and 3.3.6 Warrants for BA, AU and Delete from GRD Part 4
CH Turn Treatments CH Turn Treatments
A.9 Intersection Treatments – 3.2.5 Intersection Treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
Rural Divided Roads – Rural Divided Roads

Updated
GRD
Part 4
heading
A.9.1 Two Staged Crossing 3.2.5 Two-staged crossing Delete from GRD Part 4
A.9.2 Offset Right-turn Lanes 3.2.5 Offset right-turn lanes Delete from GRD Part 4
A.10 Intersection Treatments – 3.2.6 Intersection Treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
Urban Divided Roads – Urban Divided Roads
A.10.1 Basic Median Opening 3.2.6 Basic median opening Delete from GRD Part 4
A.10.2 Urban Offset Right-turn 3.2.6 Urban offset right-turn Delete from GRD Part 4
Lanes lanes
A.10.3 Intersection Layouts with 3.2.6 Intersection layouts with Delete from GRD Part 4
Service Roads service roads
A.10.4 Staggered T-intersections 3.2.7 Staggered T- Delete from GRD Part 4
intersections
A.11 Seagull Treatments 3.2.8 Seagull Treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
A.11.1 Rural Seagull Treatments 3.2.8 Rural seagull treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
A.11.2 Urban Seagull Treatment 3.2.8 Urban seagull treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
A.12 Wide Median Treatment 3.2.9 Wide Median Treatments Delete from GRD Part 4
A.13 Channelised Intersections 3.2.1 Channelised Delete from GRD Part 4
with Right-turn Restrictions 0 Intersections with Right-
turn Restrictions
A.14 Auxiliary Lanes Retain in GRD Part 4 A.5
A.14.1 General Retain in GRD Part 4 A.5.1

A.14.2 Determining the Need for 3.3.5 Determining the Need for Delete from GRD Part 4
Auxiliary Lanes Auxiliary Lanes
Deceleration turn lanes 3.3.5 Deceleration turn lanes Delete from GRD Part 4
Acceleration lanes 3.3.5 Acceleration lanes Delete from GRD Part 4
Auxiliary through lanes 3.3.5 Auxiliary through lanes Delete from GRD Part 4
Other considerations Retain in GRD Part 4 A.5.2
A.15 Traffic Islands and Retain in GRD Part 4 A.6
Medians
A.16 Right-Turn Treatments - Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7
Layout Design Details
A.16.1 Introduction Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7.1
A.16.2 Opposed Right-turns Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7.2
A.16.3 Right-turn Bans at Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7.3
Signalised Intersections
A.16.4 Right-turn Lanes for Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7.4
Cyclists
A.16.5 Rural Right-turn Retain in GRD Part 4 A.7.5
Treatments – Undivided
Roads
A.17 Left-Turn Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 A.8
A.17.2 Urban Left-turn Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 A.8.2
A.18 U-Turn Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 A.9
A.18.2 Rural Roads Retain in GRD Part 4 A.9.2
A.18.3 Urban Roads Retain in GRD Part 4 A.9.3

Updated
GRD
Part 4
heading
B.1 General Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.2 Signal Operation Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Considerations
B.2.1 Traffic Operation at an Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Intersection
B.2.2 Proximity to Other Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Intersections
B.3 Intersection Layouts Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.3.1 General Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.3.2 Service Road Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.4 Traffic Lanes Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.4.1 General Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.4.2 U-Turning Lanes Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.5 Pedestrian Treatments Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.5.1 Pedestrian crossings Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
B.5.2 Pedestrian Facilities – Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Mid-block
B.6 Cyclist Facilities at Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Signalised Intersections
B.6.1 On-road Bicycle Lanes Retain in GRD Part 4 No change

B.6.2 Crossings Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
C.1 Unsignalised Crossings Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
C.1.1 General Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
C.1.2 Low Volume Streets Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
C.1.3 Refuges away from Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Intersections
C.1.4 Refuges within Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Unsignalised Intersections
C.1.5 Cyclist Priority Treatment Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
at Path Crossings of Low
Volume Streets
C.2 Signalised Mid-block Retain in GRD Part 4 No change
Crossings

Appendix B Additional Commentary on GRD

Part 3 Appendix A3.2
B.1 Stopping Sight Distance and Vertical Curves

GRD Part 3 Section 5.3 describes Stopping Sight Distance, including the Equation A1:
RTV V2
SSD = + A1
3.6 254(d + 0.01a)
where
RT = reaction time (sec)

V = operating speed (km/h)
d = coefficient of deceleration (longitudinal friction factor)
a = longitudinal grade (%, + for upgrades and – for downgrades)
• It is generally for driver eye height (1.1 m for cars, 2.4 m for trucks) and object height of 0.2 m (Table 5.1).
• Driver reaction times (RT) are listed in Table 5.2, and are 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 seconds.
• The coefficient of deceleration values are in Table 5.3 (0.61, 0.46 and 0.26 for cars, 0.29 for trucks).
• Table 5.5 gives values of SSD for cars for RT = 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 s, and d = 0.46, 0.36 and 0.26 at speeds
between 40 and 130 km/h, and corrections for grades (a) between –8 and +8%, only for d = 0.36.
• Table 5.6 gives values of SSD for trucks for RT +1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 s, and d = 0.29 at speeds between 40
and 110 km/h, and corrections for grades (a) between –8 and +8%.
B.2 Extended Design Domain Nomenclature

Department of Main Roads (2005) states that for convenience, a stopping distance case (or capability) can
be described in terms of the following nomenclature:
Case Code-RT-wet/dry-h2
(For example, Norm-day-2-wet-0.4 describes the capability corresponding to a normal car driver travelling at
the operating [85th percentile] speed in daylight hours with an RT of 2 s when stopping in wet conditions for
a 0.4 m high object.)
B.3 EDD for Stopping Sight Distance (Appendix A.3)

• Table A 3 describes the base case, which is Norm-Day (car @ 85th % speed in daytime) and Truck-Day.
• Table A 4 gives base case verticals for EDD, including h2 values of 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 m for
Norm-Day and Truck-Day (Check case in note 3 using headlight heights of 0.65 and 1.05 m).
• Table A 5 gives RT values of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 s, which are the same as NDD (Table 5.2), but additional
typical usage for EDD. Check cases are in notes.
• Table A 6 gives base case coefficient of deceleration d values for EDD, using the higher car values (0.61
and 0.46) from Table 5.3, but the same for trucks (0.29). Check cases are in notes, including 0.28 and
0.26 for road-trains, lower values for mean speeds, and higher for skilled drivers.

• Table A 7 gives EDD SSD for base case for dry and wet roads. Wet roads (d = 0.46) is the same as the
absolute minimum in NDD Table 5.5. Dry and low volume (d = 0.61) is additional to the NDD.
• Tables A 8 and A 9 give grade corrections for –8 to +8% grades for d = 0.46 and 0.61. The NDD
Table 5.5 only has grade corrections for d = 0.36. The order of grades in these tables (A 8, 9) is different
than the order in Table 5.5, so needs consistency.
• Table A 10 gives EDD SSD for the Truck-Day base case, and they are the same as NDD Table 5.6,
because d = 0.29 is the same. There are additional numbers for V =100, 110 when RT = 1.5 s, and blanks
for V = 40 to 80 km/h when RT = 2.5 s.
• Table A 11 gives grade correction distances for trucks (d = 0.29) and so is the same as NDD Table 5.6,
but with the grades ordered differently.
B.4 EDD for Crest Vertical Curves (K value) (Appendix A.3.8)

Section 8.6 discusses vertical curves, with Equation A2, A3 and A4 showing the relationship between the K
value and sight distance (for crests):
L = KA
A2
2
S A3
K= 2
when S < L
200��h1 + �h2 �
2
2S 200��h1 + �h2 � A4
K= - when S > L
A A2
where
L = length of vertical curve (m)
K = length of vertical curve in meters for 1% change in grade
A = algebraic grade change (%)
S = sight distance (m)
h1 = driver eye height, as used to establish sight distance (m)
h2 = object height, as used to establish sight distance (m)
• Table 8.7 gives NDD crest vertical curve K values using the SSD shown in Table 5.5.
• It also gives the stopping capability of these.
• This Appendix A.3.8 calculates the EDD crest vertical curve K values using the EDD SSDs shown in
Table A 7 (cars) and Table A 10 (trucks).
• It only shows numbers for S < L and braking length grade averaging 0%.
• Table A 13 calculates the K value for the Norm-Day base case using the SSD from Table A 7 with
d = 0.61 and 0.46, and h2 = 0.2 m. The values for wet roads (d = 0.46) are the same as those shown in
NDD Table 8.7 for absolute minimum. Check cases then indicate for Norm-Night, object heights would
need to be higher. For Mean-Day cases, lower speeds (< 60 km/h for dry roads = 40 km/h for wet roads)
and RT = 1.5 s are not acceptable. Should these numbers be removed from Table? For Mean-Night
cases, with RT = 1.5 s, object height needs to be 0.6 m for dry roads and 0.4 m for wet roads at speeds
< 70 km/h.
• Tables A 14, 15 and 16 are the same as Table A 13 but with h2 = 0.4 m, 0.8 m and 1.25 m.

• They indicate with a strikethrough those values that do not provide minimum manoeuvre time, then
indicate values in brackets that do provide it, or do provide SSD at h2 = 0.2 m (same as Table A 13). A
suggestion would be to just show these acceptable numbers.
• Table A 17 shows EDD crest curve K values for the Truck-Day base case, for h2 = 0.8 m and 1.25 m.
Check cases then look at Truck-Night. For h2 = 0.8 m, this is acceptable, but with h1 = 2.4 m (driver eye
height) rather than 1.05 m (headlight height). For h2 = 1.25 m, Night capability is not there, so
suggestion would be to not include these numbers in the table.

Appendix C Commentary on Truck Volumes from

AP-R211-02 Geometric Design for
Trucks: When, Where and How?
The Austroads publication Geometric Design for Trucks: When, Where and How? (AP-R211-02) has
Table 12 ‘Indicative truck volumes at which truck-based standards are justified for horizontal curve radius
and horizontal stopping sight distance’, for 90 km/h and below, and 100 km/h and above, with truck volumes
ranging from 100 to 2500 vpd. Refer to Table C 1.
Table C 1: Indicative truck volumes at which truck-based standards are justified for horizontal curve radius and
horizontal stopping sight distance
Truck volume (trucks/day)

Design speed Terrain
Single-carriageway Dual carriageway
≤ 90 km/h Level 100
Easy 100–150
Moderate 300–400
≥ 100 km/h Level 200 400
Easy 300–400 600–800

Moderate 700–1200 1500–2500
Source: Austroads (2002).
From Austroads AP-R211-02, for a pure sidling ascent, truck-based grade standards using the 10 km/h
speed decrement criterion were economically justified for truck volumes of 60 to 150 trucks/day in easy
terrain and at 150 to 350 trucks/day in moderate terrain. For the direct ascent situation, however, the truck
volumes necessary for truck-based grade standards to be economically justified were unrealistically high. An
analysis of overpass approach grades found that truck-based grade standards from the 10 km/h speed
decrement criterion were economically justified at initial year truck volumes of about 2500 trucks/day. Note
that this finding does not apply to interchange ramps where the flatter grade will require a substantial
increase in the length of the ramp.

Appendix D Suggested Inclusion to Replace GRD

Part 3 Commentary 7 (2016 Edition)
D.1 Commentary 7 from GRD Part 3 2016 Edition

Run-off-road and head-on crash rates are reduced by increasing shoulder width. However, the effect
progressively decreases, (Figure C7 1). Shoulders are not normally provided on urban roads where the
carriageway is fully paved between kerbs. A parking lane may be provided instead of a shoulder; in some
cases, this may serve as a traffic lane during peak periods.
For information on the safety benefits of different shoulder widths refer to Improving Roadside Safety:
Summary Report (Austroads 2014b).
D.2 Improving Roadside Safety: Summary Report (Austroads 2014b)

As an integral part of a clear zone, the role of shoulders in driver recovery was investigated through further
analysis of the data. It showed that:
• Provision of even a narrow-unsealed shoulder (≤ 0.5 m) reduces run-off-road casualty crash risk
dramatically when compared to the no-shoulder scenario.
• Provision of a combination of sealed and unsealed shoulders appears to achieve much better results than
provision of a sealed shoulder only.
• On average, an extra 0.5–1.0 m unsealed shoulder width has the potential to reduce average run-off-road
casualty crash rates by 35–50%.
• Provision of a narrow-sealed shoulder (≤ 0.5 m) in addition to an unsealed shoulder did not provide
significant additional run-off-road safety benefits.
• However, a 0.6–1.0 m sealed shoulder would have the potential to reduce run-off-road casualty crash
rates by 33–64%.

The Report conclusions also stated there were many limitations to the project findings which included
drawing data predominantly from one jurisdiction, applicability to a limited range of road types, or some
findings not being statistically significant. For these reasons, the findings of this project should be accepted
with a degree of caution until further research provides more broadly applicable findings.
D.3 Suggested Inclusions

It is suggested that the conclusions from the Report are inserted in Commentary 7, replacing the old
reference.

Appendix E Suggested Action for Part 3

Commentary 9
Figure E 1 was in the 2010 version of Commentary 9 of Part 3.
Figure E 1: Figure from the 2010 version of commentary 9 of part 3


Figure E 2 is in the current version of GTM Part 5.
Figure E 2: Figure from the current version of GTM part 5

Figure E 3 is from the Source document ‘Sustrans design manual: handbook for cycle-friendly design’
(April 2014).
Figure E 3: Figure from source document used in the current version of GTM part 5
It is suggested that consultation is undertaken between RDTF, NTF and TMWG to obtain agreement on one
figure, and then include a cross-reference to AGTM Part 5 in AGRD Part 3.

Appendix F Suggested Amendments for Part 4A

Section 8.2.4
F.1 Austroads
• GRD Part 4A Section 4 Types of Intersection and Their Selection says: For detailed information on the
type and selection of an intersection, designers should refer to AGTM Part 6.
• GTM Part 6-20 says in Section 3.2.3, on Rural auxiliary lane (AU) treatments:
– Generally, a CHL treatment is (preferred) to an AUL treatment, particularly where sight distance may
be impeded. Consequently, a CHL treatment should be used wherever practicable to ensure a clear
line of sight for drivers at the intersection:
- For a minor road at unsignalised intersections, an AUL treatment is not preferred as a vehicle in the
right lane obscures the view for drivers in the left lane (Figure 3.4). Consequently, on the minor
road approach the preferred configuration is for one stand-up lane (basic treatment) or, where
practicable, a CHL.
F.2 Queensland
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) (Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road
Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections in RPDM ed 2 Vol 3 August 2014) – referenced in
RPDM ed 2 Vol 3 March 2016.
• This has additions to GRD Part 4A, and one replacement (Figure 8.7 Provision for cyclists), but nothing
about preferred option.
• The TMR supplement also includes a new treatment, the Offset rural CHL treatment, which addresses the
sight distance problems for AUL and CHL (refer to Figure F 1).
Figure F 1: Figure 4A-5 from TMR supplement to Austroads guide to road design part 4A: unsignalised and
signalised intersections
Source: Department of Main Roads (2005).

F.3 GRD Part 4 Footnotes

Department of Main Roads (2005_ has been superseded and Figure 8.4 has not been carried forward into
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (2016) (and all the figures in Section 8.2 Rural
Left-turn Treatments).
However, TMR’s Supplement says GRD Part 4A is accepted with amendments, and none of those
amendments delete or replace the figures, apart from Figure 8.7. The footnotes are misleading, because
they imply that TMR does not favour the arrangements in the figures.
F.4 Suggestions
• Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 with Figures 8.3 and 8.4 (AULs) carry a warning (or be deleted).
• That Section 8.2.4 carries a reference to GTM Part 6 in the selection of left turn treatment options.
• TMR’s Offset rural CHL treatment be included in the Guide (in Section 8.2.4).
• The footnotes in the references to TMR be removed (mainly in respect to BALs and CHLs).

Appendix G Commentary on GRD Part 4A

Appendix A.1 – EDD and Safety
G.1 Existing GRD Guidance on EDD and Safety

The use of EDD may be limited to particular parameters (e.g. sight distance) where research has
demonstrated that the adoption of EDD rather than NDD will nevertheless result in some improvement in
crash rates, and a risk assessment is undertaken to justify the decision.
It also states (in relation to Design Exceptions, i.e. those below EDD):
Sometimes the drivers for adopting design exceptions such as these may be for social, environmental or
economic reasons, however the risk assessment must show that the decisions associated with adopting
such a low standard outweigh the potentially higher cost of crashes.
The current Appendix A.1 gives general comments on the use of EDD and is similar to that in Appendix A of
Part 3. That Appendix also includes the point: EDD parameters should not be used where safety issues have
been identified.
The key point in the advice on the use of EDD is:

Application of EDD involves identification and documentation of driver capability. Ultimately, the capabilities
that are accepted may have to pass the test of what is reasonable capability (the capability that a court
decides a driver can reasonably be expected to have when they are taking reasonable care for their own
safety).
This does not seem to be in line with the Safe System philosophy.
All of the following (except where indicated otherwise) are extracts from Austroads (in press).
G.1.1 Road Planning (2.1.1)
The rationale for the preferred design could include the degree of take-up or adoption of Safe System
elements.
G.1.2 The Safe System Approach (2.2.1)
We need to improve the safety of all parts of the system – roads and roadsides, speeds, vehicles, and road
use so that if one part fails, other parts will still protect the people involved.
Designing a road to these principles is not the same as designing a road which simply meets a set of
recommended values. A road designed to meet a set of recommended values is not necessarily safe and a
road which, in some details, fails to meet these values is not necessarily unsafe. There is no substitute for
the application of sound engineering experience and judgement.
G.1.3 Design Considerations (2.2.2)
Most design choices affect the expected crash frequency, severity or both. Some design choices are made
from a continuum of values (e.g. median width, grade or sight distance). The change in safety corresponding
to a change in these values is also continuously variable.

To make an appropriate design choice affecting the future safety of a road, the designer should use the best
available information. Research into the relationship between crash frequency and road design parameters
has been undertaken in Australia, New Zealand and overseas in recent years, which led to the development
of analytical tools to evaluate crash risk and the effect of treatment options on crash frequency. This
information is available for the road designer to consider in relation to specific road design solutions.
Designers of the past, without benefit of this knowledge, often relied on geometric design standards, based
on laws of physics, without the necessary data to adequately assess the safety consequences. Reliance on
guidelines will not necessarily ensure that an appropriate level of safety has been built into a road.
G.1.4 Designing for Safety (2.2.3) Road Safety Audits
Road Safety Audit is more than checking Standards (GRS Part 6A Section 1.4).
Standards are an important starting point with any road design. A designer should be familiar with the
relevant standards, attempt to comply with them and be aware of where any standard cannot be achieved.
However, standards do not guarantee safety as:
• Standards are developed for a range of reasons, e.g. cost or traffic capacity, as well as safety.
• Standards are often a minimum requirement; combining a series of minimums is undesirable and can
leave no room for error, either on the part of the designer, the builder or the final road users.
• Standards usually cover general or common situations, not all situations.
• The standard may not be applicable to the circumstances in the design.
• Individual road elements, designed to standard, may be quite safe in isolation but may, when combined
with other standard elements, be unsafe (i.e. lead a significant number of road users to make errors).
• The particular standard may be based on old information.
• A designer may be using an inappropriate standard or an outdated standard.
Rather than checking for compliance, a road safety audit is checking fitness for purpose: will the road or
treatment work safely for its expected road users? Auditors should also fully understand the Safe System
and be able to integrate this approach, as appropriate, into the audit process.
G.1.5 Performance-based Design (3.6)
Performance-based design anticipates the performance effects of design decisions.
Performance-based analysis provides a key basis for the exercise of design flexibility.
Flexible design emphasises the role of the planner and designer in determining appropriate design
dimensions based on project-specific conditions and existing and future roadway performance more than on
meeting specific nominal design criteria. In the past, designers sought to ensure good traffic operational and
safety performance for the design of specific projects primarily by meeting the dimensional design criteria in
the road design guides. This approach was appropriate in the past because the relationship between design
dimensions and future performance was poorly understood. Recent research has improved knowledge of the
relationship between geometric design features and traffic operations for all modes of transportation and has
developed new knowledge about the relationship of geometric design features to crash frequency and
severity.
In these circumstances, deviations from typical best practice may be acceptable if there is sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that performance for all road users will achieve an acceptable standard – particularly with
regard to safety.

G.1.6 Context-sensitive Design (4.3)
Context-sensitive design asks questions about the need and purpose of the transportation project, and then
equally addresses safety, mobility and the preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic, environmental, and
other community values. Context-sensitive design involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in
which citizens are part of the design team.
G.1.7 Normal Design Domain (4.4.1)
The extent of the normal design domain within the various manuals and guidelines is usually based on the
experience and judgement of practitioners, even where the relationship with safety has been identified by
research.
G.1.8 Extended Design Domain (4.4.2)
EDD values are developed based on the following principles:

• an appropriate risk-based process
• a sound technical and engineering basis
• engineering and professional judgement
• an existing satisfactory safety performance.
G.1.9 Application of the Guidelines (4.5.3)

Design values that are not within the limits recommended by the relevant guide do not necessarily result in
unacceptable designs, and values that are within those limits do not necessarily guarantee an acceptable or
safe design. In assessing the quality of a design, it is not appropriate simply to consider a checklist of
recommended limits. The design has to be developed with sound, professional judgement, and guidelines
assist the designer in making those judgements.
G.2 Commentary
Appendix A of GRD Part 4A provides guidance on the use of Extended Design Domain for Intersections. It
looks at sight distance and all its variants, namely:
• approach sight distance (ASD)
• minimum gap sight distance (MGSD)
• safe intersection sight distance (SISD).
The criteria used to determine these sight distances are:

• Speed: 85th percentile/mean free (about 0.85 times 85th percentile)
• Eye height: 1.1 m for cars/2.4 m for trucks
• Headlight height (for night-time): 0.65 m for cars/1.05 m for trucks
• Object height: 0 m for ASD 1.25 m for cars/0.8 m for trucks
• Reaction times: 1.5/2.0/2.5 sec
• Longitudinal deceleration: 0.61/0.46/0.41/0.36/0.29 (for trucks)
• Observation time: 1.5/2.0/2.5/3.0 sec.

In Part 4A of the guide, in the main body and the Appendix, there are a total of 11 tables that give calculated
stopping sight distances and equivalent K values, 4 for ASD and 7 for SISD. (see spreadsheet: SSD
Parameters in Part 4A).
The tables in the EDD Appendix vary most of the parameters that are used to calculate SSD and K. These
include:
• eye height, different for cars and trucks, and different at night for SISD
• object height (SISD only), also different for cars and trucks, and at night
• coefficient of deceleration, trucks and cars are different, three different values for cars
• observation time for SISD.
The check cases for SISD use the varied parameters to calculate what the observation time would be, and
says they are acceptable, for calculated times ranging from 2.9 secs down to 0.6 secs.
This is also the case for the ASD for cars in Table 3.1, where the check case for trucks calculates the
deceleration rate capability.



AP-R655-21 Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in GRD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R655-21 Inclusion of Recent Road Safety Research in GRD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Austroads Ltd 2021 | This material is for personal use only, it is not to be used for commercial training purposes,

unless approved by Austroads.

the Guide to Road Design Phase 2

Madeleine Bekavac, Noel O’Callaghan and Malcolm Mak Austroads Ltd.

Abstract About Austroads

• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

Austroads 2021 | page i

2.2.7 GRD Part 5 ........................................................................................................................ 27

Austroads 2021 | page ii

5. Recommendations Requiring Further Investigation or Endorsement ........................................... 62

F.3 GRD Part 4 Footnotes .................................................................................................................... 80

Table 1.1: Research reports reviewed as part of SRD6045 ........................................................................ 1

Austroads 2021 | page iii

Austroads 2021 | page iv

The deliverables for this project included:

• first publishing milestone GRD update (Austroads word and pdf)

1.2.1 Research Reports

Table 1.1: Research reports reviewed as part of SRD6045

Austroads 2021 | page 1

17. AP-R480-15 Investigation of Key Crash Types: Rear-end Crashes in Urban 1

Austroads 2021 | page 2

Table 1.2: Impact on the Guide to Road Design

1 Significant content/recommendations incorporated in part(s) of the GRD as soon as possible

1.2.2 Research Reports Excluded in this Project

Table 1.3: Research reports that do not affect this project

Austroads 2021 | page 3

Austroads 2021 | page 4

Figure 1.2: Example process

Austroads 2021 | page 5

2. First Publishing Milestone

Table 2.1: Collated list of updates for first publishing milestone

Category 1–3 Appendices A, B, C, D

2.2 Amendments Made under the First Publishing Milestone

2.2.1 GRD Part 1 and Part 2

Austroads 2021 | page 6

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

Austroads 2021 | page 7

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

Figure 2.2: Project Management description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1

Figure 2.3: Associated designs description in Table 4.5 of GRD Part 1

Austroads 2021 | page 8

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

Research Report AP-R515-16 Infrastructure

Austroads 2021 | page 9

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

include providing the safest possible

Austroads 2021 | page 10

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

2.2.2 GRD Part 3

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

lane widths logically provide lower

Austroads 2021 | page 11

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

raised medians where the roadway is too

Austroads 2021 | page 12

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

albeit reduced, and can be managed on a risk

Austroads 2021 | page 13

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

• any artificial lighting needs to be provided

Median Turning Bays

Austroads 2021 | page 14

SRD6045 recommendation SRD6219 GRD update

this profile is unlikely to cause the driver to