Rsa Zimbamwe

PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DETAILED
ENGINEERING DESIGNS and TENDER DOCUMENTS

for the
200 km GWANDA to BEITBRIDGE ROAD SECTION

in ZIMBABWE
Annex H-3
DRAFT ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT
August, 2017
Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (ICT), India Grant No. 5150155001101
in Joint Venture with
Yooshin Engineering Corporation, South Korea Contract No.

CS/29.04.15/01.MEG
REPORT PREPARATION & DISTRIBUTION RECORD
REPORT DETAILS
Document Prepared
Project Name Report For
No. by
Preparation of Feasibility Studies, Detailed
Engineering Design and Tender Documents
COMESA RSA-001 JMB.
for the 200 km Gwanda to Beitbridge Road
Section in Zimbabwe
RELEASE No. and REVIEW / AUTHORISATION DATA
Authorized for
Revision No. Prepared By Date Date
Release by
0 JM Barrell August, 2017 HR Luck August, 2017
DISTRIBUTION
Number
Number
of Copies Date
Distribution List of Copies Language
[Electroni Issued
[Paper]
c]
COMESA 3 3
GOVERNMENT OF ZIMBABWE
Ministry of Transport & August,
English
Infrastructural Development 4 4 2017
[Department of Roads],
Harare
ICT – Head Office
Senior Vice President 1
Contracts Cell - New Delhi 1
Project Director - New Delhi 1
ICT - Country Representative English August,
1
Office 2017
YOOSHIN - Head Office, South
1
Korea
CASCADE - Harare, Zimbabwe 1
ASCO (Zambia) Ltd. 1
Preparation of Feasibility Studies, Detailed Engineering Designs and Draft Final Report
Tender Documents for the 200 km Gwanda to Beitbridge Road section
in Zimbabwe August, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sl. No. Description Page No.
1. Introduction 4
2. Documents and Drawings Provided 6
3. Background 11
3.1 Section Details 11
4. Structures 15
5. Existing Road Safety Concerns 16
6. Summary of Audit Findings 17
7. Draft Design Stage Audit Detail 19
7.1 Alignment 19
7.2 Cross Section 22
7.3 Structures 27
7.4 Junctions 36
7.5 Speed Management 50
8. Declaration 55
Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (ICT), India Venture with South Korea 2
Table of Figures
Figure 1: SADC Regional Corridor Map .................................................................................. 11
Figure 2: Project Location Map................................................................................................ 12
Figure 3: Extract from TCS 3 showing increase in side slope during recycling ..................... 23
Figure 4: Typical side slope on route ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 5: Entry to Gwanda [soutbbound] ................................................................................ 25
Figure 6: Kerbed islands approaching Gwanda Business District to be retained .................. 25
Figure 7: Exposed Sideslope around right hand curve (southbound) – Km 123+500 .......... 26
Figure 8: Unprotected slope to right (southbound) – Km 172+400 ........................................ 27
Figure 9: Unprotected slope – straight Km 211+000 .............................................................. 27
Figure 10: Typical culvert headwall to be extended/replaced ................................................. 31
Figure 11: Typical extended culvert and updated headwall design ........................................ 32
Figure 12: Km 135+550- Armco to be retained! - Needs protection ....................................... 32
Figure 13: Ditch to extended culvert needs protecting/regarding Km 152+900 ..................... 33
Figure 14: Km 259+400 – culvert to remain! ........................................................................... 33
Figure 15: Km 314+000 Culvert to remain! ............................................................................. 33
Figure 16: Structures 151/2 and 3 Km 150+ 250 .................................................................... 35
Figure 17: „Bridge‟ @ Km 308+000 treated above as culvert ................................................. 35
Figure 18: Narrow bridge deck with existing raised footway................................................... 36
Figure 19: Example of Inconsistent Speed Limit Signing [60 / 120 km/h at km 171+100] .... 51
Km 164+350 Figure 20:Typical Lay-by and Trading Activity ............................................ 51
Figure 21: Approach Signing [Rail Crossing at Km 133+300] ................................................ 53
Figure 22: Incomplete Toll Plaza [Km 155+400] ..................................................................... 54
Figure 23: Operational Toll Plaza [Km 300+620] .................................................................... 54

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the finding of an independent road safety audit prepared by John
Barrell, an independent certified road safety auditor appointed by Intercontinental
Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (ICT), India to review the draft detailed design for the
upgrading of 200km of rural single carriageway road section between Gwanda and
Beitbridge, Zimbabwe.
The audit has been carried out considering the criteria outlined in Annex II of EC Directive
2008/96 and following the information given in the South African Road Safety Audit Manual
(2nd Edition) 2012 -The Manual.
The audit was carried out between 10th and 25th August 2017. The audit team were present
in Zimbabwe between 11th and 16th August and the audit report and findings were written up
on return to UK.
A commencement meeting was held with representatives of the design team Eng Bernard
Musarurwa, Deputy Team Leader and Eng Munyaradzi Meki) in Zimbabwe on 11th and 12th
August where the project was explained and design issues clarified. Much of the day on
12th August was spent reviewing the existing photographic record of the route and available
documents. A full list of drawings and documents made available electronically is included
in Section 2 below.
The site visit of the project road undertaken on Sun/Mon 13/14th August when the weather
was dry and fine. It consisted of a drive of the whole route with stops and inspections at
various locations, together with a meeting with the Town Engineer in Gwanda (Eng Ndebele)
between 11.00 and 12.30 on Sunday 13th August.
This being a „small and simple‟ audit in accordance with para 3.3.3 of the Manual, only one
auditor was appointed to the scheme. However, to provide additional context and local
knowledge, the auditor was accompanied on the site visit by Eng. Meki and Ms Nombulelo
Mabhena – who acted as driver for the trip.
On completion of the site visit, a summary meeting and review of the main findings was held
with Eng Meki and forwarded to the Project Team Leader, Mr Howard R. Luck.
A Road Safety Audit is defined as a formal and systematic examination process that ensures
a regular and uniform application. Road safety audits focus on the examination of new road
projects or upgrading projects to detect defects or features that may contribute to casualty
crashes or to the severity of such crashes. It is also an „exception‟ report in that it only
reports on those aspects of the project that are a safety concern, and not necessarily a
review of appropriate design standards. Where elements of a design are not necessarily to
„standard‟, but do not raise a safety concern in a specific location they will not be raised as
items in the report.
The main body of the report consists of the identification of each specific road safety
problem, supported with the background reasoning, stating:
 The location of the problem;
 The nature of the problem; and
 The type of crash that is likely to occur as a result of the identified problem;
This Is followed by a Recommendations for action to mitigate or remove the problems, taking
cognisance that the recommended remedial measure shall be appropriate and viable for that
particular stage of the audit; and be proportionate to the scale of the identified Problem.
Recommendations worded as “to consider...”, “to study....”, “to monitor...”, “to investigate
possible treatments and implement the most appropriate...”, etc. shall be avoided;

Most importantly, Recommendations shall not be motivated for implementation in a way that
could be construed as the audit team trying to convince the client to take a specific action.
Final actions and treatments are the responsibility of the client/design team to develop.
An A3 or A4 location map, marked up and referenced to the problems and, where available,
photographs of the problems identified should be provided wherever possible. In this
instance, a marked A4 plan has been omitted as plans do not exist for the whole route.
However, relevant km locations and typical photographs have been included to highlight
specific issues.
NOTE: Km locations may not be accurate as different bases appear to have been used
depending on which element of the design is being undertaken. Km locations in this report
have been taken form 10m interval photographs provided by the design team. However,
these have increasing variance of up to 1km over the distance of the project road from north
to south. Estimated adjustments have been made to try and tie in with the provided design
Plan and Profile drawings!

2. DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS PROVIDED
Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Date Title Content
Draft Final
Aug-17 Report
Vol 1 Main Text
Vol 2 A
Annex A - Traffic Surveys
Annex B - Pavement Deflection & IRI Reports
Annex C - Topographical Survey Data
Annex D - Visual Condition Surveys [Pavement]
Annex E-I - Sub-surface Test Report [Pavements]
Annex E-2 - Test Results [Materials Sources]
Vol 2 B
Annex F - Bridge Condition Surveys
Annex G - Drainage Design Report
Annex H-1 - Police Road Accident Records
Annex H-2 - Road Safety Condition Assessment
Annex I - Construction Cost Estimates
Annex J - Economic Assessment
Annex K-1 - Minutes of PDR Presentation Meeting
Annex K-2 - Minutes of Meetings [Local Authorities]
Aug-17 Vol 3
Drawings Plan and Profile 120+000 121+500
121+500 123+000
123+000 124+500
124+500 126+000
126+000 127+500
127+500 129+000
129+000 130+500
130+500 132+000
132+000 133+500


Date Title Content
133+500 135+000
135+000 136+500
136+500 138+000
138+000 139+500
139+500 141+000
141+000 142+500
142+500 144+000
144+000 145+500
145+500 147+000
147+000 148+500
148+500 149+000
149+000 150+500
150+500 152+000
152+000 153+500
153+500 155+000
155+000 156+500
156+500 158+000
158+000 159+500
159+500 161+000
161+000 162+500
162+500 164+000
164+000 165+500
165+500 167+000
167+000 168+500
168+500 170+000
170+000 171+000
171+000 172+500
172+500 174+000
174+000 175+500
175+500 177+000
177+000 178+500
178+500 180+000
180+000 181+500
181+500 183+000


Date Title Content
183+000 184+500
184+500 186+000
186+000 187+500
187+500 189+000
189+000 190+500
190+500 192+000
192+000 193+500
193+500 195+000
195+000 196+500
196+500 198+000
198+000 199+500
199+500 201+000
201+000 202+500
202+500 204+000
204+000 205+500
205+500 207+000
207+000 208+500
208+500 210+000
210+000 211+500
211+500 213+000
213+000 214+500
214+500 216+000
216+000 217+500
217+500 219+000
245+500 247+000
247+000 248+500
248+500 250+000
250+000 251+500
251+500 253+000
253+000 254+500
254+500 256+000
256+000 257+500
257+500 259+000
259+000 260+500


Date Title Content
260+500 262+000
262+000 263+500
263+500 265+000
265+000 266+500
266+500 268+000
268+000 269+500
269+500 271+000
271+000 272+500
272+500 274+000
274+000 275+500
275+500 277+000
277+000 278+500
278+500 280+000
308+000 309+500
309+500 311+000
311+000 312+500
312+500 313+000
Aug-17 Typical Cross - Section 1 and 2
3 and 4
Standard
Aug-17 Drawings
Pipe Culvert End Treatment Sheet 1 to 3
Sheet 2 of 3
Sheet 3 of 3
Types of Ditches
Chute Drain
Embankment Protection with
Chute Pitching
Typical Detail for Protection of
Land Slide Areas
Road Sign Mounting Detail
Major Junctions
Minor Junctions or Local
Roads and Private Access
Roads


Date Title Content
Intersections for Urban Area and Private Property Access and
Commercial Use Road
Bus Bay
Details of Guide and Km Post
Speed Hump and Pedestrian
Crossing
Typical Layout for the Accommodation of Traffic
Single Lane Working : Short

Duration (daytime only)
Temporary Road Surface:
Long Duration
Long Duration
Diversion
Long Duration:
Split Diversion
Long Duration
Diversion
Typical Layout of Mounting
Plan
Road Traffic Signs Sheet 1 0f 9

Sheet 2 of 9
Sheet 3 of 9
Sheet 4 0f 9
Sheet 5 of 9
Sheet 6 of 9
Sheet 7 of 9
Sheet 8 of 9
Sheet 9 of 9
A6POSA1 Km 120 -221
A6NEGC1 Km 221- 120
A6NEGB1 Km 277 – 221
Photographs
Nov @10m A6POSB1 Km 221 – 313
2015 intervals A6NEGA1 Km 319 - 274

3. BACKGROUND
The project road subject to this Road Safety Audit (RSA) is part of one of the several
international trunk routes connecting Zimbabwe with the neighbouring countries of
Botswana. Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa as indicated in Figure 1
below:
Figure 1: SADC Regional Corridor Map

Overall, it is intended that the proposed intervention will reduce travel costs for all
road users as well as maintenance costs for the Government. Another major
objective is to help improve road safety conditions for international and regional traffic
as well as for local communities / residents.
3.1 Section Details
The subject section of the project corridor starts just north of Gwanda [at a point 120
km from the Bulawayo Main Post Office] and ends at the intersection with the
Masvingo road about 4 km north of the international border area. The approximate
limits of the subject Project section are indicated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Project Location Map

A number of urban and semi-urban sections and some sporadic road side ribbon
development are present along the existing predominantly rural road section.
Roadside provisions to be made in each location were discussed with the relevant
agencies early in the detailed design stage.
Retention of property access and the introduction of appropriately improved
operational conditions for road-users is included in the detailed design development.
3.1.1 Project Limits
According to the original ToR wording, the subject section of the road was to be at
approximately km 200+000 - beginning at the roadside reference marker located at
km 120+000 and ending at the Beitbridge international border crossing area.
Northern Limit of Contract
In collaboration with the Consultant responsible for the adjacent Bulawayo-Gwanda
section of the corridor, a common interface point was agreed. The resulting northern
limit of the subject Gwanda-Beitbridge was established at a point slightly south of the
120km reference marker. This is defined in the design drawings.

Southern Limit of Contract

Following the release of a letter to all prospective Bidders [Circular Letter No. 1 dated
November 12, 2015, paragraph 3, refers] during the Proposal preparation stages, the
project‟s end point was changed to the junction at the Masvingo Road turn-off - at
about km 317+000. This was done on the basis that the Masvingo Road [and its
junction with the Bulawayo-Beitbridge Road] was already under study by others.
Further, that the work required to complete the „twinning‟ of the 4-km section between
the Masvingo Road junction and the Beitbridge Border Crossing designed by the
Ministry was to be awarded to a private Contractor.
From the Consultant‟s precise topographical survey, the centre of the existing
junction lies within km 317+000 [from Bulawayo], a point about 4 kilometres north of
the originally defined end point within the Beitbridge Border crossing zone. The
southern limit of the work in fact, lies about 200m north of the junction* resulting in an
overall length of the subject section of road of approximately 197 kilometres.
3.1.2 Road Cross Section
The existing road is a 7m carriageway with approximately 1.4m shoulders.
Increasing shoulder widths to 2.5 m necessitates widening of the road prism width by
means of benching in fill sections and widening of any cut slopes - also the extension
of pipe and box culverts with the associated replacement of associated headwalls
and end treatments.
In compliance with directions received from the Client during the August, 2016
presentation of the Preliminary Design details, the following strategy was adopted
and subsequently incorporated into the detailed design:
a) Re-seal only Sections
The present roadway width is to be provided with two, 3.5m wide traffic lanes leaving
a residual amount of 2.78 m. This is adequate for two, 1.39m wide shoulders - all-
weather surfaces are to be provided throughout.
(Km 219+000 - 246+000: Km 281+000 - 308+000; and Km 313+000 - 316+200)
b) Rehabilitation Sections
The existing prism width is to be increased to a total of 12.0m comprised of two, 3.5m
traffic lanes and 2.5 m shoulders. This entails the extension of existing cross-culverts
with related effects on existing headwalls. Again, all-weather surfaces are to be
provided throughout.
(Km 112+000 – 219+000; Km 246+000 – 281+000; and Km 308+000 – Km 313+000)
c) Rehabilitation / Grade Raise Sections
In the two locations where the roadway was found to be subject to over-topping
under fairly frequent flood events and to reduce both the periodic interruption of traffic
flows and future maintenance costs emanating from these events, the road profile
was designed to be raised locally. This also was discussed and approved at the
preliminary design stage presentation in August of 2016.
Work in these two locations will result in a new prism width of 12.0 m comprised of
two, 3.5m traffic lanes with 2.5 m shoulders. The existing cross-culverts in the areas
will need to be extended along with related headwall reconstruction.
(Km 309+050 - 309+450; and Km 310+600 - 311+900)

The overall result is a standard pavement and shoulder width of 2x3.5m running
lanes with 2.5m sealed shoulders over the majority of the route, with narrow
shoulders provided over three intermediate sections of between 5 and 27km each.
This change in cross section is a safety concern as it destroys any route consistency.
No plan and profiles have been provided for these reduced cross section areas as
they replace the existing surfacing within the current carriageway limits. As is
discussed later in the detailed section of this report Section 6), this gives rise to a
number of safety issues related to NMU provision, protection of roadside hazards
(existing culverts/bridges) and existing access points

4. STRUCTURES
The project road also contains 18No bridges that are deemed to be in adequate
condition and no structural changes are proposed to these structures. The Terms of
Reference stated that major bridge interventions are excluded from the scope of the
project as a result of regular DoR inspections that suggest that acceptable conditions
exist at each site. No structural analyses were therefore required to be undertaken by
the Consultant - as a result, the Consultant‟s responsibilities extended only as far as
the identification of repair works, needed. Detailed inspections of each structure were
carried out based on which, necessary interventions and routine maintenance work
was identified.
These works include:
 Replacement of damaged, inadequate or otherwise non-standard parapets and
handrails;
 Modification of deck walkways and kerbing to provide safer conditions for road
users; [including the installation of foot walk extensions and guard rails on
approaches];
 Re-surfacing of decks, with or without waterproofing membranes as required;
 Repair of damage to the pre-stressed beams on the first three bridges;
 Repair of spalled concrete members on super and/or sub-structure elements;
 Repair or replacement of buried / inoperable expansion joints;
 Correction of settlements on approaches [including the construction of approach
slabs if appropriate] in order to improve user comfort and safety;
 Improvement of deck drainage systems by cleaning of scupper pipes and
ensuring storm water can drain efficiently;
 Repair or removal of existing some on-deck utility installations [e.g. small
diameter steel pipes];
 Replacement of old / installation of new, bridge name plates;
 Removal of dead trees and other vegetation obstructing flow in the channels;
 Removal of vegetation from the on the decks;
 Repair of erosion control measures on approach fills;
 Installation of new [or replacement of old] horizontal and vertical signage.
These works have not been detailed in the drawings provided for audit but are
considered to be reasonable approaches that will enhance road user safety.
Additional site specific measures are detailed later in this report.

5. EXISTING ROAD SAFETY CONCERNS

A review of existing road safety on the project road was undertaken in 2016 and
reported in the Preliminary Design Report dated May 2016. This summarised the
road safety issues as:
 Added surface width in Gwanda and Beitbridge to address on-street parking and
vending area demands;
 Installation of raised sidewalks and pedestrian railings in selected urban areas to
enhance pedestrian safety;
 Improved definition of lane edges for turning traffic at major junctions, fuel
stations etc;
 Additional vertical warning signs on the approaches to some vertical curves
[sharp crests];
 Improved directional signage on the approaches to the Masvingo junction and
Border area;
 Barrier protection on bridge approach fills;
 Installation of painted centre and edge lines [with reflectorized road studs and/or
delineators on bends];
 Repair [with some upgrading] of parapet and approach fill guardrails at bridge
sites;
 Improvement of deck drainage and the restoration of cross-falls by re-surfacing of
bridge decks;
 Additional erosion protection works, especially on the upstream, and possibly
increase the cross culvert capacity in a few areas to reduce the risk of flooding
and surface ponding;
 Introduction of „‟safer‟‟ culvert headwall structures to minimize impacts;
 Provision of boundary fencing to reduce the incidence of stray animals on the
carriageway.
These measures have yet to be defined in the Final Report but are considered in
more detail in this report.
In addition, the review of police collision information for 2012-216 showed a high
proportion of vehicle/animal collisions; run off road and overturning (see Appendix 1
Road Safety Assessment Report May 2016). This suggests inappropriate design
speed and roadside protection. Issues that are discussed in detail later in this report.

6. SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS

Problem 1: restricted visibility due to reduced horizontal and vertical curvature
Recommendation 1: appropriate signing and line markings needs to be provided to
warn drivers that overtaking in these areas would be inappropriate.
Problem 2: Different width of sealed shoulder are to be provided for areas to be
resurfaced compared to those to be rehabilitated.
Recommendation 2: Where there is a change in sealed shoulder width along the
route this needs to be achieved with a smooth transition in width that can easily be
followed by a vehicle, rather than a sudden break.
Problem 3: Typical Cross Section drawings TCS 2, 3 and 4 show creation of 1:2 side
slopes that increase the risk of vehicles overturning
Recommendation 3: All Typical Details should have maximum side slope no
steeper than 1:3 or provide appropriate protection where any side slope exceeds 1:3
Problem 4: Cross section maintained through the Gwanda urban area ignores
parking and NMU provision
Recommendation 4: Remove perpendicular parking and maintain overall width,
allowing for parallel parking in sealed shoulder width and creation of a continuous
raised footway on both sides for pedestrians though Gwanda. Alternatively, comply
with Town Council‟s preference for provision of a 4-lane cross-section and
compensate for loss of on-street parking capacity at off-street locations.
Problem 5: Proposed cross section ignores existing short length of segregated
carriageway at either end of Gwanda business district.
Recommendation 5: Existing island need to be retained. Kerbs to be raised to
match new surface level and additional signing of „gore area‟ to improve driver
awareness of features.
Problem 6: Sharp curve with unprotected side slope can result in vehicles
overturning
Recommendation 6: Install appropriate roadside barriers to protect errant vehicles
Problem 7: Existing culverts that are to remain have unprotected headwalls close to
the carriageway causing a hazard to vehicles using the sealed shoulder.
Recommendation 7: All culverts along the route need to be extended/modified to
ensure that headwalls are outside a 5m „clear zone‟ from the edge of the running
lane and allow safe over-running by vehicles on the slope/shoulder. All shoulder
slopes into ditches need regrading to max 1:3
Problem 8: Several bridges identified on route constitute culverts, but other with non
- structural barriers treated as bridges and need protection.
Recommendation 8: Appropriate parapet guardrail and restraint systems need to be
provided on all open structures along the project route to prevent vehicles leaving the
carriageway and overturning in the river, stream bed.
Problem 9: Narrow bridge decks of insufficient width to continue sealed shoulder
Recommendation 9: Install advance warning signs to indicate the presence of slow
moving vehicles in main running lanes and absence of sealed shoulder
Problem 10: Standard details do not show full requirements for junction details

Recommendation 10: Ensure that all signing and kerbing requirements for junctions
are included on the standard detail sheets.
Problem 11: Not all existing junctions are included in the upgrade. All other
junctions need to be formally closed to prevent degradation of the sealed shoulder.
Recommendation 11: A complete inventory of all access points needs to be
included and appropriate treatments for those not being upgraded in the design,
should be provided.
Problem 12: A detailed schedule of junction road signs has been provided in
preparation for the safety audit. This is incomplete and not compatible with the
defined junction list, or the missing ones noted in Problem 11.
Recommendation 12: A consistent approach to signing of all junctions needs to be
applied throughout the route.
Problem 13: Inconsistency in application and signing of speed limits can lead to
excessive speed and increased risk of head-on and NMV collisions.
Recommendation 13: Provide full speed limit signing and awareness for road users
approaching and leaving any settlement area
Problem 14: Pairs of lay-bys exist along the route, either in isolation or around
junctions where pedestrian crossing activity is likely.
Recommendation 14: All lay-bys, and particularly those around schools, settlements
and roadside trading areas need to be located within 60 km/h speed limit zones and
provided with defined pedestrian crossing points.
Problem 15: Inconsistent approach to signing and speed at rail crossing points.
Recommendation 15: Ensure a consistent and contemporary approach to signing,
speed control and speed management at all rail crossings so that vehicles approach
the rumble strips at an appropriate speed. Consider future conversion to grade-
separated crossings
Problem 16: Appropriate designs are not provided to deal with Toll Plazas
Recommendation 16: Provide design details for implementing speed control and
retaining existing speed control devices at these locations in conjunction with
ZINARA.

7. DRAFT DESIGN STAGE AUDIT DETAIL

7.1 Alignment
7.1.1 Problem 1
Summary: restricted visibility due to reduced horizontal and vertical curvature
Locations:
Horizontal Vertical ‘k’
Start End
Radius Value
121+500 121+750 600
122+667 122+900 600
123+707 123+788 550
129+221 129+341 62
130+400 130+750
130+967 131+306 595
131+460 131+640 540
132+029 132+496 600
132+955 133+560 590/560
133+569 134+170 615
135+738 135+978 70
137+198 137+444 91/98
140+735 141+046 58
141+970 142+700 96
142+760 143+580 260?
143+750 145+900 47
146+000 146+700 80/86
146+900 147+800 74/75
151+650 151+820 57/58
156+510 157+970 45-89
160+960 161+400 59
162+490 163+440 55
163+630 765 78/40
164+700 165+080 31-86
165+660 166+400 40-55
166+670 167+630
168+400 168+900 16-58
169+710 170+560


Start End
Radius Value
170+250 170+560
170+890 171+550 615 35/40
172+200 173+920 540 18-68
174+300 175+400 930 39
175+700 176+370 920 50
176+700 177+850 33/62
178+650 179+520 53
181+050 181+650 115
183+200 184+200 141 45
184+400 185+400 81
185+800 186+400 49
186+700 187+600 81/51
188+000 188+900 66/59
190+100 190+500 52/42
191+500 191+900 65
193+200 193+900 102
194+400 195+200 98/80
196+200 197+600 44/67/74
197+600 198+700 74/34
198+450 199+050 1500 73
200+720 202+450 60
202+850 203+400 104
204+700 206+200 40/55
206+600 207+400 100
207+700 208+300 94
208+900 210+100 83/80/64
210+300 210+500 1150
211+450 212+200 605
212+750 213+400 600 40
214+000 214+300 83
214+740 215+000 112
215+900 216+300 875
217+600 218+200 820


Start End
Radius Value
219+000 NO Drawings UNTIL 245+000
219+500 220+300 x
223+000 224+300 x
224+900 226+400 *
226+740 *
226+800 227+400 *
229+500 230+260 *
231+200 231+900 *
232+300 232+680 *
234+750 *
236+100 237+400 *
237+750 238+400 *
239+150 *
240+750 241+400 *
241+750 243+050 * *
242+250 242+350
242+550 243+000
245+200 245+750 *
245+350
245+500 Drawing restart
246+600 247+000 43
247+650 248+200 79
248+650 249+050 43
253+400 253+900 93
257+500 258+000 117
258+500 259+250 82
262+200 263+900 585 64/20
263+000 263+600 585
265+200 1200 51
265+700 266+200 32
166+100 267+500 587
267+200 268+000 30/38
268+750 565


Start End
Radius Value
271+300 273+400 575 26/85
277+350 279+000 509 155
drawings end until 308+000
286+100 287+100 *
287+300 288+200 *
291+600 292+400 *
295+400 297+900 * *
298+150 299+350 *
299+400 300+050 *
301+100 303+050 *
304+650 305+250 *
306+000 307+000 * *
306+800 307+750 *
308+100 311+00 22/34/66
308+500 309+300 48/15
311+700 313+300 920 71/31
drawings finish @313+000
314+000 314+600 * *
316+400
Detail:
The project road passes through generally rolling terrain on an existing alignment
that was established before current design standards were adopted. Consequently,
a number of both vertical and horizontal curves do not meet current minimum
requirements of either radius or „k‟ value. This results in areas where forward
visibility is restricted and could lead to inappropriate overtaking and subsequent head
on collisions.
Recommendation:
The table above identifies those locations containing either vertical or horizontal
restrictions to forward visibility and appropriate signing and line markings needs to be
provided to warn drivers that overtaking in these areas would be inappropriate.
7.2 Cross Section
7.2.1 Problem 2
Summary: Different widths of sealed shoulder are to be provided for areas to be
resurfaced compared to those to be rehabilitated. This can lead to vehicles running
on the shoulder at these locations losing control and overturning.
Locations: km 219+000; km246+000; km281+000; km208+000; km 313+000

Detail: The agreed design allows for the maintenance of the existing road cross
section where resurfacing is taking place. This results in the resealed shoulder width
reducing from 2.5m where it is subject to rehabilitation, to only 1.39m. No details of
any transition have been provided, and existing situations where change between
any and no sealed shoulder take place happen abruptly. This could lead to loss of
control for any vehicle running on the wider shoulder.
Recommendation: Where there is a change in sealed shoulder width along the
route this needs to be achieved with a smooth transition in width that can easily be
followed by a vehicle, rather than a sudden break. A transition gradient of 1:35 is
recommended.
7.2.2 Problem 3
Summary: Typical Cross Section drawings TCS 2, 3 and 4 show creation of 1:2 side
slopes that increase the risk of vehicles overturning
Location: whole route where rehabilitation or recycling is proposed
Detail: No actual cross sections for the route have yet been prepared and the Typical
Cross Sections assume either a flat or raised cross section with existing side slopes
at a 1:3 gradient. A 1:3 gradient on the embankment, even with a widened sealed
shoulder, is the maximum side slope that allows vehicles to recover and re-enter the
carriageway. Safe System approach considers that to allow for effective recovery in
the case of loss of control, no slope within 5m of the edge of carriageway should be
greater than 1:3. Slopes greater than 1:3 within 5m of the running lane, may result in
errant vehicles overturning – a situation already over represented in the Collision
data for this route. Visual inspection of the route shows that this is not the case in
many places, particularly around existing cross-road culverts.
Figure 3: Extract from TCS 3 showing increase in side slope during recycling

Figure 4: Typical side slope on route

Recommendation: All Typical Details should have maximum side slope no steeper
than 1:3 or provide appropriate protection where any side slope exceeds 1:3
7.2.4 Problem 4
Summary: Cross section maintained through urban area ignores parking and NMV
provision
Location: Km 124+150 – Km 124+950
Detail: The standard road cross section of 2x3.5 running lanes and 2.5m sealed
shoulders is presently shown to be maintained throughout the urban area of Gwanda
and ignores the presence of existing perpendicular parking. There is insufficient
space between existing- and developing -property to accommodate these and
prevents the creation of a continuous raised, segregated footway for pedestrians
through this busy area. This can result in pedestrian and vehicle collisions
throughout this length.
Recommendation: Remove perpendicular parking and maintain overall width,
allowing for parallel parking in sealed shoulder width and creation of a continuous
raised footway on both sides for pedestrians though Gwanda. Alternatively, comply
with Town Council‟s preference for the provision of a 4-lane cross-section and
compensate for loss of on-street parking capacity at off-street locations.
7.2.4 Problem 5
Summary: Proposed cross section ignores existing short length of segregated
carriageway at either end of Gwanda business district.
Locations: Km 125+280 – Km 125+320 and Km 126+170 – Km 126+290
Detail: both approaches into Gwanda business district (from north and south) include
kerbed deflection islands that assist in controlling vehicle speed into this busy
multifunction area.
The proposed Plan and Profile details show no retention of these features. This
could lead to increased vehicle speed in this area and conflict and injury with
pedestrians and manoeuvring vehicles.
Recommendation: Existing island need to be retained. Kerbs to be raised to match
new surface level and additional signing of „gore area‟ to improve driver awareness of
features.

Figure 5: Entry to Gwanda [soutbbound]
Figure 6: Kerbed islands approaching Gwanda Business District to be retained

7.2.5 Problem 6
Summary: sharp curves with unprotected side slopes can result in vehicles
overturning
Locations:
Start End Comment
123+453 123+574 additional protection on /flatten embankment
outside of curve slope
127+560 127+900 unprotected embankment left hand bend - speed limit 80km/h!
confirmation??
129+230 129+440 unprotected embankment left - straight
warning!
130+400 130+750 unprotected embankment left on right
hand curve
131+460 131+640 unprotected embankment left on right
hand curve
132+400 132+520 unprotected slope right approaching curve -

Start End Comment

minor issue
133+630 134+520 unprotected slope right around left
hand curve
172+500 172+640 marker post right side steep
embankment
187+650 187+800 unprotected slopes
197+500 197+800 unprotected embankments
210+300 210+500 unprotected left slope around right
hand curve
210+850 210+950 unprotected slope
229+850 230+000 exposed slope left
263+000 263+600 unprotected slope left to right hand
curve
316+400 existing junction to Masvingo
End of Project Road
Figure 7: Exposed Sideslope around right hand curve (southbound) –

Km 123+500

Figure 8: Unprotected slope to right (southbound) – Km 172+400
Figure 9: Unprotected slope – straight Km 211+000

Detail: Super elevation applied to existing cross section around a restricted visibility
right hand curve results in an exposed unprotected sideslope where if vehicles lose
control and leave the carriageway - they are likely to overturn.
Recommendation: Install appropriate roadside barriers to protect errant vehicles
7.3 Structures
7.3.1 Problem 7
Summary: Existing culverts that are to remain have unprotected headwalls close to
the carriageway causing a hazard to vehicles using the sealed shoulder.
Locations:
Start End
139+560 139+640 steep inlet to culvert-to be extended 140/2 and 3
152+930 153+040 deep drainage trench to culvert right- to be extended
protection of ditch needed?
163+430 163+620 unprotected embankments around culvert 164/2 to
be retained!

Start End
180+940 181+060 unprotected embankments to culvert 182/2
181_900 unprotected embankment around culvert - to be
retained 182/2
182+030 182+150 unprotected embankment around culvert 183/2
184+900 unprotected embankment around culvert - not in
design
185+500 unprotected embankment around culvert - left only 186/
to remain 1
186+425 unprotected embankment to culvert 187/1 to remain
191+050 191+150 unprotected embankment around culvert to be
retained 192/1
191+300 unprotected embankment to culvert to be retained
192/2
197+100 unprotected slope around culvert to be retained
198/1
200+300 unprotected slope to culvert to remain 201/1
207/1
211/1
210+600 210+700 unprotected slope around culvert to be extended
211/3
217+300 unprotected slope around culvert
identified as bridge - not present 218/1
No Drawings
219+600 unprotected slopes to culvert - to remain!!
222+200 unprotected slopes to culvert - to remain!!
223+110 unprotected slope/headwall to culvert to remain
+tree
226+050 unprotected slope to culvert left
226+300 unprotected slope to culvert
226_800 226+900 unprotected slopes to culvert - to remain!!
232+250 232+350 unprotected embankments around culvert to remain!
234+100 234+200 unprotected slope to culvert - to remain

Start End
241+875 unprotected slope to culvert - to remain
245+500 Drawings
246+250 unprotected slope to culverts 247/2 and /3
to remain
248+650 unprotected slope to culverts 248/2
to remain
249+750 unprotected slope to culvert - 250/3
to remain
251+650 unprotected slope to culvert 252/1
to remain
to remain
to remain
257+200 257+450 unprotected slopes to culvert 258/1
to remain
260+560 unprotected slopes to culvert 261/2
to remain
261+500 261+850 unprotected slopes to 263/1
culverts to remain
262+750 unprotected slopes to culver 263/2
to remain
263+850 264+200 unprotected slope to culvert 265/1&2
to remain
to remain
to remain
266+250 unprotected slope to culvert - 267/2
to remain
266+635 unprotected slopes to culvert - to remain267/3
266+950 unprotected slopes to culver t- to remain267/5
to remain
- to remain
- to remain

Start End
271+800 272+500 unprotected slopes to (272/2;
culverts to remain (273/1;
(273/2;
(273/3
273+600 273+700 unprotected slopes to 274/4 and 5
culverts to remain
277+000 277+200 unprotected slopes to 278/1 and 2 also
culverts to remain unidentified
277+500 unprotected slopes to 278/3
culverts to remain
277+950 278+050 unprotected slopes to 278/4
culverts to remain
279+350 279+600 unprotected slopes to culvert 280/1
to remain
culverts to remain
culverts to remain
drawings end until 308+000
to remain
291+000 unprotected slope to culvert -
to remain
291+250 unprotected slop to culvert to
remain
to remain
to remain
295+100 295+200 unprotected slope to culvert
to remain
296+500 296+850 unprotected slopes to
culverts
297+500 297+800 unprotected slope to
culvert
299+600 unprotected slope to culver to be
replaced
299+700 Beitbridge
20km
300+800 unprotected slope to culvert to remain

Start End
303+500 303+750 unprotected slope right (inc culvert!)
304+500 unprotected slope to culvert - to remain
308+500 unprotected culvert to remain
drawings finish @313+000
to remain!
315+200 unprotected culvert to be replaced - widening
scheme!
315+400 unprotected culvert to be replaced - widening
scheme!
316+400 existing junction to
Masvingo
End of Project Road
Details: Appendix III in Annex G – Drainage Report of the DFR details all the
surveyed culverts along the project route and identifies that that are to be replaced,
and those that remain. Those that are to be replaced will be extended and provided
with amended headwall designs that follow the embankments slope and provide an
overrun area or any vehicle leaving the sealed shoulder – assuming a recoverable
slope of 1:3.
Figure 10: Typical culvert headwall to be extended/replaced

Figure 11: Typical extended culvert and updated headwall design

However, there are a number of existing culverts, and some newer designs that are
not to be replaced. These have considerable erosion around the inlet/outlet area that
result in side slopes in excess of 1:3 in close proximity to the running carriageway
and sealed shoulder – especially through the sections where only resurfacing is
proposed and the reduced shoulder width of 1.4m remains. These present a serious
hazard to vehicles overturning.
Figure 12: Km 135+550- Armco to be retained! - Needs protection

Figure 13: Ditch to extended culvert needs protecting/regarding Km 152+900
Figure 14: Km 259+400 – culvert to remain!
Figure 15: Km 314+000 Culvert to remain!

Recommendation: All culverts along the route need to be extended/modified to
ensure that headwalls are outside a 5m „clear zone‟ from the edge of the running
lane and allow safe overrunning by vehicles on the slope/shoulder. All shoulder
slopes into ditches need regrading to max 1:3

7.3.2 Problem 8
Summary: Several bridges identified on route constitute culverts but others, with
non - structural barriers are effectively bridges and need protection.
Locations:
Start End
123+800 123+900 bridge unprotected embankments
narrow- warning needed of no shoulder structure 124/4
126+350 126+430 unprotected bridge parapets and narrow crossing - no shoulder!
132+900 133+140 bridge 134/1 no protection on approaches - posts only
141+650 unprotected bridge 142/1 steep embankments on curves
- needs slope protection!
141+760 unsealed access right - in design.
146+000 unprotected side slopes at bridge 147/1
169+200 speed limit change 60 km/h/ 120! Mnyasa river bridge
unprotected embankments
170+250 170+560 unprotected embankments to bridge 171/1
171+720 172+000 unprotected embankments approaching bridge 173/1
212+050 212+300 unprotected slopes to bridge 213/1
268+600 268+750 unprotected Muzunga River bridge
End of Project Road
Detail:
Details of „bridges‟ are listed in the Bridge List and Inspection Report contained in
Annex F of the DFR – Bridge Condition Surveys. However, these structures are a
combination of open span bridges and large Arched/Armco culverts. Consequently,
the safety issues with many of these structures have already been considered above
under -culverts. However, there are significant open span structures which have
ancillary concrete barriers over the deck, that do not appear to conform to any
current structural standard for vehicle restraint. In addition, there are no roadside
protection on the approaches that would prevent vehicles overturning into the
stream/river bed, resulting in serious of possibly fatal injury.
This item addresses specifically the above deck restraint requirement for these open
structures that currently have some form of parapet present – and within the design
assessment have been considered adequate with no further treatment proposed.

Figure 16: Structures 151/2 and 3 Km 150+ 250

These open structures do not provide any meaningful form of restraint to prevent
vehicles overturning should they leave the carriageway.
Figure 17: ‘Bridge’ @ Km 308+000 treated above as culvert

Recommendation: Appropriate parapet guardrail and restraint systems need to be
provided on all open structures along the project route to prevent vehicles leaving the
carriageway and overturning in the river, stream bed. Particular attention is required
to the terminal end treatment and any fixture of the restraint system to the parapet.
All elements should comply with EN1317. Use of „fishtails or ramped ends is NOT
recommended.
7.3.3 Problem 9
Summary: Narrow bridge deck insufficient width to continue sealed shoulder
Locations:
Start End
123+800 123+900 bridge unprotected embankments
narrow- warning needed of no shoulder structure 124/4

Start End
132+900 133+140 bridge 134/1 no protection on approaches - posts only
141+650 unprotected bridge 142/1 steep embankments on curves
- needs slope protection!
170+250 170+560 unprotected embankments to bridge 171/1
171+720 172+000 unprotected embankments approaching bridge 173/1
212+050 212+300 unprotected slopes to bridge 213/1
268+600 268+750 unprotected Muzunga River bridge
End of Project Road
Detail: Existing bridge decks have insufficient width to continue a sealed shoulder
and many do not have raised footways provided. This will result in slow moving non-
motorised vehicles being forced into the running lanes and possibly colliding with
passing high speed vehicles. Pedestrians are able to use the footways provided.
Figure 18: Narrow bridge deck with existing raised footway

Recommendation: Install advance warning signs to indicate the presence of slow
moving vehicles in main running lanes and absence of sealed shoulder – ie Narrow
Bridge!
Also add standard DoR „footwalk extensions‟ to the presently vertical ends of most
footways.
7.4 Junctions
7.4.1 Problem 10
Summary: Standard details do not show full requirements for junction details
Locations: All Junctions to be provided along project route (including those if
resurfaced sections) are as listed in table below:

Preparation of Feasibility Studies, Detailed Engineering Designs and Tender Documents for the 200 km Gwanda Draft Final Report
to Beitbridge Road section
JUNCTIONS BY TYPE & LOCATION
Design Vehicle
Per JAG -design drawing of July 27:
[Assumed]
Type ‘B’ for minor roads has 15 m radii and side road width of 2 x 3.5m. SU
Type ‘C’ for access roads has 10 m radii and side road width of 1 x about 5m. SU
Also needed:
Type ‘A’ Major junction for main roads with simple/compound radii & some channelization - radii 15- WB [with or without lane
20 m encroachment]
Type ‘D‟ minor junction for restricted urban areas & private property access - 3.5m radii. PC
WB [with lane
'Commercial' used for fuels stations, factories etc. - 10m radii.
encroachment]
'Agricultural' used for fields etc. - no radii.
Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

(ICT), India in Joint Venture with South Korea 37
Location Type A Type B Type C Type D Commercial Agricultural Remarks

120+650 L
122+200 R
122+530 R
123+220 L
123+480 L
124+220 R
124+590 L Show Ground access
124+855 R
124+860 L Show Ground access
Start of Gwanda Below to be included in
[km 125.0 - 126.4] PS for urban area
125+100 R Filling Station access
125+150 R
125+330 L
125+360 L
125+440 R 1st Avenue
125+500 L
125+530 R 2nd Avenue
125+540 L
125+610 R 3rd Avenue [to Hospital]
125+640 R


125+770 L
125+775 R 4th Avenue
125+980 L To Jaunda
126+150 R
126+160 L
126+250 R To Blanket Mine
End of Gwanda Above to be included in
[km 125 - 126.4] PS for urban area
127+160 R
127+270 R
128+750 R
128+970 L
132+210 R To Garanyemba
132+290 L Prison access
132+290 R To Trading Centre
132+770 L
134+810 L To Hatena
134+810 R To Garanyemba
135+280 R


135+730 L
136+850 L
137+860 L
138+340 L
139+165 L
139+170 R
140+780 L To Eagle vulture Mine
141+400 L To Mascot-Pezance Mine
148+755 L To Jaka Farm
148+755 R
149+330 R
149+520 R
Below to be included in
Colleen Bawn [km 150.8-151.3]
PS for roadside area
150+130 L
150+150 R To Sub-station
150+330 L To Waterworks
150+990 L To Filling Station
151+090 L To Filling Station
151+090 R
Above to be included in


152+285 L
152+340 R
152+370 L
152+665 L
152+685 R
153+070 L
154+845 L
155+410 Toll Plaza
156+980 L
157+770 L To Silalabuhwa
157+780 R
157+870 R
161+120 L
163+030 L
163+320 R To Halfway Lodge
164+130 L To Jezi Mine
164+155 R
164+630 L To Jezi Mine
168_440 R
169+360 L To Police Station
169+745 R


170+015 L
West Nicholson Below to be included in
[km 170.2-170.8] PS for roadside area
170+295 R
170+365 L
170+735 R To Filling Station
170+785 R To High School
West Nicholson Above to be included in
[km 170.2-170.8] PS for roadside area
170+820 R To Filling Station
171+570 L
172+265 L
174+915 L
175+830 R
183+625 L
183+650 R
183+895 L To Sandawana
189+790 R To Jonsyl Ranch
194+320 L To Sndlans
198+470 L To Bubiana Conservation
199+120 R
199+315 L To Mabheka Secondary


School
199+620 L To Tod‟s G/H
199+680 L To Tod‟s G/H
200+450 L To Cattle Sales
200+600 R To Chipizi
203+665 R
203+680 L
204+620 L
206+360 R
211+490 R
213+070 L
216+140 R
216+180 L
220+770 R
220+950 L
227+440 R
228+340 R
Makhado [km 229.1-229.5]
Makhado [km 229.1-229.5] Above to be included in


229+910 L To Mwenezi
230+750 L
To Siyaowadza Trading
233+940 R
Centre
236+730 R To Mapili Pre-school
238+070 R To Zezani
To Bubye Conservation
244+770 R
Area
244+770 L
245+360 R
248+840 R To Zhiphempe School
255+200 R To Kwaru
257+515 R
261+560 R
Mazunga [km 263.0-263.2]
263+145 R
263+150 L To Mazunga
Above to be included in
Mazunga [km 263.0-263.2]
266+060 R
269+940 L


275+750 L
279+270 R
282+080 L To Jpembe School
285+920 R
285+920 L ToTongwe
Area to be included in PS
Mtetengwe [km 290.4-290.5]
for roadside market area
294+050 L
294+065 R
294+950 L
300+620 Toll Plaza
304+400 R To Malalasch School
308+285 R
310+890 R To Villages
312+370 R To Quarry
315+310 L
316+200 To Masvingo [By Others]

Detail: Standard Drawings are provided for the following types of junctions:
Major Junctions;
Minor Junctions or Local Roads and Private Access Roads;
Intersections for Urban Area; and
Private Property Access and Commercial Use Road
Types A-D as described above. All these details only show the edge of carriageway
and shoulder ling and a single road sign. They do not include the kerb type common
on all access/junction points along the route nor the full extent of typical signing
proposed. This can result in confusion over the junction requirements and lack of
awareness from all road users leading to increased pedestrian and vehicle collisions.
Recommendation: Ensure that all signing and kerbing requirements for junctions
are included on the standard details.
7.4.2 Problem 11
Summary: Not all existing junctions are included in the upgrade. All other junctions
need to be formally closed to prevent degradation of the sealed shoulder.
Locations: km 128+260 left
km 129+960 right
km 132+080 right
km 141+130 left
km 152+850 left
km 157+270 right
km 158+590 right
km 163+350 left
km 169+360 right
km 181+610 left
km 186+500 left
km 187+300 right
km 197+200 right
km 199+680 right
km 206+350 right
km 212+500 left
km 213+450 right
km 217+500 both sides
km 226+250 right
km 227+570 right
km 238+050 right
km 239+100 right
km 247+450 left

km 30+550 right
km 300+700 left
km 301+500 left
km 302+000 both sides
km 302+600 right
km 303+400 right village
km 304+800 left
km 304 +850 right
km 305+000 right
km 306+350 left
km 307+800 left
Detail: There are a range of formal and informal access points/junctions along the
route that are not included in the table of junctions and therefore must be considered
to be closed. However, no provision has been made in the design for their formal
closure. This will result in informal use of these access points continuing and lead to
conflict between turning/crossing movements and traffic on the main carriageway.
Some of these may involve pedestrians and or animal movements.
Recommendation: A complete inventory of all access points needs to be included
and appropriate treatments for those not being upgraded in the design should be
provided.
7.4.3 Problem 12
Summary: A detailed schedule of junction road signs has been provided in in
preparation for the safety audit. This is incomplete and not compatible with the
defined junction list, or the missing ones noted in Problem 11.
Locations:
122+200
122+530
123+220
123+480
124+220
124+860
Start of Gwanda [km 125.0 - 126.4]
End of Gwanda [km 125 - 126.4]
132+770
135+280
135+730
137+860
138+340
140+780

148+755
148+755
149+330
149+520
150+330
150+990
151+090
151+090
152+340
152+370
153+070
154+845
155+410
156+980
157+770
157+780
157+870
163+030
163+320
168_440
West Nicholson [km 170.2-170.8]
172+265
204+620
206+360
211+490
213+070
216+140
216+180
220+770
220+950
Makhado [km 229.1-229.5]
230+750
233+940
236+730
244+770

244+770
245+360
248+840
255+200
257+515
261+560
Mazunga [km 263.0-263.2]
266+060
269+940
275+750
279+270
282+080
285+920
285+920
294+050
294+065
294+950
300+620
304+400
308+285
310+890
312+370
315+310a
Details: A detailed schedule of road signs has been provided that is incomplete and
does not tie in with the schedule of junctions to be improved. The signs and
proposed lining of junctions provides adequate safety provision PROVIDED that they
are applied consistently to all junctions. Inconsistent application of signing and lining
will lead to inappropriate manoeuvres by both pedestrians and vehicles causing
injury and collisions.
Recommendation: A consistent approach to signing of all junctions needs to be
applied throughout the route. Minimum signing requirements should be – Yield signs
on side roads, advance junction warning signs, local direction signs and chevron
boards. Driver awareness of junctions and possible tuning movements needs to be
clearly visible at all locations. The SADC standard signs and markings code has
been adopted in Zimbabwe and should be reflected in the design approach.

7.5 Speed Management

75.1 Urban Areas
Summary: Inconsistency in application and signing of speed limits can lead to
excessive speed and increased risk of head on and NMU collisions.
Locations:
Gwanda [km 125.0 - 126.4]
West Nicholson [km 170.2-170.8]
Makhado [km 229.1-229.5]
Mazunga [km 263.0-263.2]
Detail: It is understood from the design team that the national speed limits in
Zimbabwe are 120km/h in rural areas and 60 km/h through settlements. To achieve
this effectively there is a gradual transition using a series of speed limit changes
through 100, 80 and 60km/h on approach to and leaving any settlement. During the
site visit only a limited number of existing speed limit signs were noted and many
transitions were missing and therefore not complied with by road users. The
locations of these ultimate 60km/h limits do not coincide with any significant change
in road character. As a result, many vehicles approach these high-risk areas where
pedestrians and slow turning vehicles are present, at inappropriate speed often
resulting in high speed collisions.
Recommendation: Provide full speed limit signing and awareness for road users
approaching and leaving any settlement area so that they are full aware of the
appropriate - and legal speed required. This signing requirement needs to be
reflected in any signing schedule for the route to include all signs to be
replaced/provided – not just those that are missing.
It is noted that a Provisional Sum has been allocated in the Works Contract for a road
safety awareness campaign to be conducted by the Contractor - see Series 1000,
Item No .19.01 (g). The requirements are contained in included in Volume 1 of the
Bid Documents under Part 2 - Employer‟s Requirements, Section 6 - Requirements,
Part 2B „Project Specifications‟.
The Contractor is required to provide a 2-stage campaign in accordance with a
program to be approved by the Engineer - it is important that is be suitably designed
and targeted - and is coordinated with any other similar initiatives underway in
Zimbabwe.

Figure 19: Example of Inconsistent Speed Limit Signing

[60 / 120 km/h at km 171+100]
7.5.2 Problem 14
Summary: Pairs of lay-bys exist along the route, either in isolation or around
junctions where pedestrian crossing activity is likely. These are currently
inconspicuous and need both speed control signage and improved pedestrian
crossing provision
Locations:
Km 128+930
Km 131+820
Km 137+900
Km 147+800
Km 151+800
Km 155+350
Km 164+350 Figure 20:Typical Lay-by and Trading Activity
Km 170+120
Km 170+570
Km 172+200
Km 180+320
Km 187+100
Km 187+300
Km 199+500
Km 213+450
Km 216+000
Km 228+400
Km 233+810
Km 235+200
Km 249+200
Km 263+150
Km 270+000

Km 282+050
Km 285+900
Km 291+000
Km 293+800
Details: Pairs of lay-bys are provided along the project road that result in a
concentration of pedestrian movement. These are in both isolated location and in
association with junction/school access points. The majority are in areas subject to
120km/h speed limit. Pedestrian conflict with high vehicles speeds is not in
accordance with the Safe System approach. AS such they need to be in areas
subject to lower speeds i.e. 60 km/h. They also need to be clearly defined and
approaching drivers need advance warning of their location.
Recommendation: All lay-bys, and particularly those around schools, settlements
and roadside trading areas need to be located within 60 km/h speed limit zones and
provided with defined pedestrian crossing points. Appropriate advance warning
signage as speed transition areas also need to be included. A standard treatment for
school zones in particular could be developed for widespread use on the national
road network.
7.5.3 Problem 15:
Summary: Inconsistent approach to signing and speed at rail crossing points.
Locations:
Km 133+300
Km 152+000
Km 170+200
Km 236+700
Km 244+150
Km 269+300
Detail: The project route crossing the rail line at grade at six separate locations as
noted above. Each of these crossing is covered by advance warning signs that vary
in positions and style. In addition, there are a series of rumble strips to add
additional warning. There is no associated speed restriction at these sites which can
result in high approach speed and loss of control collisions. The current demarcation
of the crossing by vertical bent steel posts have no defined restraint properties
presenting an additional hazard to approaching vehicles.

Figure 21: Approach Signing [Rail Crossing at Km 133+300]

Recommendation: Ensure a consistent approach to signing, speed control and
speed management at all rail crossings so that vehicles approach the crossings at
an appropriate speed.
7.5.4 Problem 16
Summary: Appropriate designs are not provided to deal with Toll Plazas
Locations:
Km 155+410
Km 300+620
Detail: Two toll plazas are present along the project road where vehicles are
required to stop and pay before passing on. These requires speed reduction on the
approach and a widening of the cross section to accommodate the toil booth.
Whilst the plaza at Km 300+620 is operational, the one at Km 155+410 is not yet
complete. No details of how these locations will be treated in the design have been
provided.
Simple resurfacing or rehabilitation will result in high approach speeds and possible
collision with the structures.
Recommendation: Provide design details for implementing speed control and
retaining existing speed control devices at these locations.

Figure 22: Incomplete Toll Plaza [Km 155+400]
Figure 23: Operational Toll Plaza [Km 300+620]

8. DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this Road Safety Audit has been conducted in accordance with the
South African Road Safety Audit Manual.2nd Edition (2012) I have examined the plans and
documents listed in Section 2 of this report. I have inspected the site. The Audit has been
carried out for the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design that could be altered
or removed to improve the safety of the proposed project. The identified issues have been
noted in this report. The accompanying findings and recommendations are put forward for
consideration by the Client for implementation.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER:

Name: John Barrell Signed:
Position: Independent Certified Road Safety Consultant Date: 26/08/2017


Rsa Zimbamwe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Rsa Zimbamwe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES, DETAILED

ENGINEERING DESIGNS and TENDER DOCUMENTS

200 km GWANDA to BEITBRIDGE ROAD SECTION

Yooshin Engineering Corporation, South Korea Contract No.

RELEASE No. and REVIEW / AUTHORISATION DATA

Sl. No. Description Page No.

2. Documents and Drawings Provided 6

3.1 Section Details 11

5. Existing Road Safety Concerns 16

6. Summary of Audit Findings 17

7. Draft Design Stage Audit Detail 19

7.2 Cross Section 22

7.5 Speed Management 50

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

2. DOCUMENTS AND DRAWINGS PROVIDED

Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Vol 1 Main Text

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Documents and Drawings Provided for Audit

Typical Layout for the Accommodation of Traffic

Single Lane Working : Short

Road Traffic Signs Sheet 1 0f 9

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Figure 1: SADC Regional Corridor Map

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Figure 2: Project Location Map

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Southern Limit of Contract

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

5. EXISTING ROAD SAFETY CONCERNS

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

6. SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

7. DRAFT DESIGN STAGE AUDIT DETAIL

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Horizontal Vertical ‘k’

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Horizontal Vertical ‘k’

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Horizontal Vertical ‘k’

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Figure 4: Typical side slope on route

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Figure 5: Entry to Gwanda [soutbbound]

Figure 6: Kerbed islands approaching Gwanda Business District to be retained

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,

Start End Comment

Figure 7: Exposed Sideslope around right hand curve (southbound) –

Intercontinental Consultants and in Joint Yooshin Engineering Corporation,