DPM Rsa

Government of Rajasthan
Public Work Department
“DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE OF DANTIWARA-

PIPAR-MERTA CITY SECTION OF SH-21 IN THE STATE
OF RAJASTHAN ON ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT &
CONSTRUCTION (EPC) MODE”
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

DESIGN STAGE AUDIT
For Km 0+000 to 24+000
Contractor: Safety Consultant:

RSB Infra Pvt. Apencia Consultant
Ltd. LLP Jaipur
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Pratap nagar , Jaipur
DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE OF DANTIWARA-PIPAR-MERTA CITY SECTION OF SH-21 Design Stage Audit Report
IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN ON ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT & CONSTRUCTION (EPC)
MODE
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3
1.1 General Background ...........................................................................................................3
1.2 Project Features ..................................................................................................................3
1.3 Project salient features ........................................................................................................4
2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................4
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................4
2.2 Methodology and Elements Contributing Road Safety ...................................................5
3.0 DETAILED DESIGN AUDIT FINDINGS .......................................................................7
3.1 Design stage Road Safety Audit .........................................................................................7
3.2 Safety Audit Checks ...........................................................................................................7
3.3 Horizontal Alignment .......................................................................................................7
3.4 Vertical Alignment ..........................................................................................................10
Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur
2
MODE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
The Public Works Department Rajasthan (PPP) has awarded Development & Maintenance Of
DANTIWARA-PIPAR-MERTA City Section Of SH-21 in the State of Rajasthan on Engineering,
Procurement & Construction (EPC) Mode” to M/s Rajendra Singh Bhamboo (RSB), Jaipur. EPC Contractor
shall be responsible for designing, engineering, procurement construction, & maintenance of the project
under and in accordance with the provision of Contract.
Location Map:
1.2 Project Features

Name of the project- Development & Maintenance of Dantiwara-Pipar-Merta City Section
of SH-21 in the State of Rajasthan on Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC)
Mode.
1. Name of EPC Contractor- RSB Infra Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

2. Project Status- Design Stage Audit Report
3. Safety Consultant – Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

3
MODE
1.3 Project salient features

Items Proposed
SH No. SH-21
Mode of Execution (BOT Toll / BOT Annuity / EPC
EPC / HAM / Item Rate)
No. of lanes/ 2-Lane with Paved Shoulders
Configuration
Length of project 86.626
No. of Toll Plaza 2
No. of Major Bridge 1
No. of Minor Bridges 7
No. of Bypass 2
No. of Realignments 5
No. of Truck lay-byes 2
No. of Bus bays and bus shelters 25
No. of Flyovers Nil
No. of RoBs Nil
No. of Culverts Box culverts (43 No.)
Pipe Culvert (13 No.)
No. of Service Roads Nil
No. of Major Junction 16
No of Minor Junctions 38
Type of Pavement Flexible pavement.
Roadside Drainage -
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
Road Safety Audit is a systematic process for checking the road safety implications of
highway improvements and new road schemes. The sole objective of the process is to
minimize future road accident occurrence and severity once the scheme has been built and the
road comes into use. Road Safety Audits fulfil a vital role in checking that roads have been

4
MODE
designed and built to the highest safety standards.
A well carried out Road Safety Audit adds value to a highway scheme at every level.
Road safety refers to the methods and measures used to prevent road users from being killed
or seriously injured. And there can be following approaches while performing a Road safety
audit.
• Traditional approach –
 Emphasises on individual responsibility and road user behaviour

(Bad drivers, reckless cyclist, distracted pedestrians)
• Safe system approach –
 Human makes mistakes
 Humans are vulnerable
 Responsibility is shared
 No death or serious injury is acceptable
 Land use planning should foster, public transport, create safe environment for
vulnerable users, separation of mix traffic
2.2 Methodology and Elements Contributing Road Safety

The overall methodology employed for undertaking the preliminary Design phase RSA
include, but not limited to the following major steps:
I. Collecting Project documents: this includes collecting project description, design

principles and standard used, Plan and profile drawings, and other relevant design
details made available for the project;
II. Studying the documents: review of project data in detail with an imagination of
how the Road would appear from the perspective of road users and in-depth
consideration of different aspects of the design.
III. Conducting site visit: was made to evaluate and verify the various safety issues
identified during the desk study; and

5
MODE
IV. Preparing RSA report for the stage under Consideration: amalgamating the
finding of the desk study and site visit findings, the Safety Audit Report has been
prepared addressing concerns relevant to this and hence providing suggestions that
will contribute towards reduction in degree of risks and increasing safety of
pedestrians and road users.
2.3 List of IRC Code:-

IRC Codes referred to conduct the Road Safety Audit are listed below;
IRC Codes Description of the Code

IRC: SP-88 Road Safety Audit Manual
IRC: SP:44 Highway Safety Code
IRC:35 Code of Practice for Road Markings
IRC:67 Code of Practice for Road Signs
IRC: SP-13 Guidelines for the design of small Bridges and Culverts.
IRC:73 Geometric Design Standards for Rural (Non-Urban) Highways
IRC:66 Recommended Practice for Sight Distance on Rural Highways
IRC: SP:23 Vertical Curves for Highways
IRC:38 Guidelines for Design of Horizontal Curves and Design Tables
IRC: SP-27 Workshop on Highway Safety
IRC: SP:41 Guidelines for the Design of At-grade intersections in Rural and
Urban Areas
IRC:99 Guidelines for Traffic Calming Measures in Urban and Rural Areas
IRC:119 Guidelines for Traffic Safety Barriers
IRC:79 Recommended Practice for Road Delineators
IRC:103 Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
IRC: SP:15 Ribbon Development along highways and its prevention
IRC: SP-73 Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two laning of
Highways with paved shoulder
IRC: SP-42 Guidelines on Road Drainage
IRC: SP-55 Guidelines on Traffic Management in work zones
CRRI Manual- Manual for Safety in Road Design

6
MODE
IRC Codes Description of the Code

1998
MoRT&H Type Design for Intersection on National Highways
Specifications
2.4 Accident Data Analysis

Accident Data Analysis will help us to get proper view of the conditions of various technical
Short-coming on Design part of any Highway. This would also help us by giving us a starting
point so that we can plan effective counter measures to decrease the traffic accident rate in
India.
2.5 Definition of Black Spots

Road Accident Black spot is a stretch of National Highway of about 500m in length in which
either 5 road accidents (in all three years put together involving fatalities/grievous injuries) took
place during the last 3 calendar years or 10 fatalities
2.6 Extraction of Data

Data was extracted from letter Police station Pipar city dated 2/11/2022, in submitted plan &
profile drawing From km 0 +000 to 24+000, speed calming measures are required.
Name of No of Chainage Safety Concerns Recommendations

Black Spot Accident
Benan 2 8+500 S Curve Speed Calming measures
are required
Riya 3 19+300 S Curve Speed Calming measures
are required

7
MODE
3 DETAILED DESIGN AUDIT FINDINGS

Safety Consultant with help of Contactor shall collect all relevant project documentation
such as:
 Technical Schedules
 Typical Cross Sections
 Plan & Profile Drawings
3.1 Design stage Road Safety Audit
The Auditor will carry out a design stage audit as per IRC SP: 88-2019, IRC: SP: 73-2018
and other applicable manual, guidelines, standards (IRC, MORTH, NHAI & Relevant
international standards) and prepare a design safety Audit report. The Audit Team visited
the site along with designer on dated 10th September 2022 to evaluate and verify the safety
issues identified during desk study.
3.2 Safety Audit Checks

All design drawings/ documents shall be checked based on the minimum criteria as per the
applicable Standard codes of practice.
3.3 Horizontal Alignment

3.3.1. Radius of Horizontal Curve:-
The design plans were checked for the following alignment inconsistencies IRC SP: 73-
2018. Clause 2.6 Radii of Horizontal curves.
Terrain Desirable Minimum (m) Absolute Minimum (m)

Plain/Rolling 400 250
As per Provided Horizontal alignment report for km 12 to km 22, at following locations EPC Contractor
proposed the Horizontal radius than Rulling radius.
Remarks by Remark
Curve HIP Radius Response from EPC
Safety from Safety
Number Chainage (m) Contractor
Auditor Consultant
OK, submit
Speed shall
1 28.080 34 Junctions developed junction
be restricted
drawing
2 19226.239 200.000 Horizontal alignment design
Horizontal by DPR consultant is not
OK. Speed
curve is satisfying the criteria of design
3 19650.291 200.000 Limit sign
designed speed 80Kmph. EPC
shall be
with 65 contractor designed the P&P
provided.
4 22246.611 250.000 kmph Speed. drawing with in available
ROW

8
MODE
As per Clause 2.6 of IRC SP: 73-2018 Minimum Radii of Horizontal Curve is Sufficient at
other sections between km 12 to 22.
3.3.2. Super elevation criteria
As per Clause 2.9.3 of IRC: SP: 73-2018 super elevation shall be limited to 7 percent, if
radius of curve is less than desirable minimum radius. It shall be limited to 5 percent, if
radius is more than desirable minimum and also at section where project highway passes
through an urban section or falls on a major Junction.
The design plans were reviewed and the minimum rate of super elevation was found sufficient
all locations in the project.
Design Super
Curve HIP
Radius (m) LS Speed Elevation
Number Chainage
(kmph) (%)
1 28.080 34.000 0 30 5.000%
2 7322.193 500.000 45 80 5.000%
3 8528.152 305.000 75 80 5.000%
4 8929.174 305.000 75 80 5.000%
5 10520.331 455.000 55 80 5.000%
6 11045.700 750.000 35 80 3.793%
7 12235.017 455.000 55 80 5.000%
8 14073.575 455.000 55 80 5.000%
9 15097.603 455.000 55 80 5.000%
10 16406.948 600.000 40 80 4.741%
11 17116.078 800.000 30 80 3.556%
12 17568.115 455.000 55 80 5.000%
13 19226.239 200.000 85 65 5.000%
14 19650.291 200.000 85 65 5.000%
15 20129.193 455.000 55 65 5.000%
16 22246.611 250.0000 75 65 5.000%
17 22867.477 305.0000 60 80 5.000%
3.3.3. Transition Curves

Transition length at curve locations will be based on clause 9.5 of IRC 73 – 1980 that gives
minimum transition lengths for different speeds and curve radii.

9
MODE
Transition Length
Hand of Proposed
Design Transition
Curve HIP Radius Arc Transition Remarks
Speed Length
Number Chainage (m) (Right/ Length of Auditor
(kmph) Required
Left) (m)
Develop
1 28.0798 34 Right 30 10 0
Junction
2 908.51355 1500 Right 80 18.75 35 OK
3 7322.19322 500 Left 80 42.67 45 OK
4 8528.1519 305 Left 80 69.93 75 OK
5 8929.17398 305 Right 80 69.93 75 OK
6 10520.33129 455 Left 80 55 OK
7 11045.70004 750 Right 80 35 OK
8 11598.96292 10000 Left 100 0 OK
9 12235.01737 455 Right 80 46.895 55 OK
10 14073.5747 455 Left 80 55 OK
11 15097.60273 455 Right 80 46.89 55 OK
12 16406.94838 600 Left 80 35.55 40 OK
13 17116.07767 800 Right 80 26.66 30 OK
14 17568.11543 455 Left 80 46.89 55 OK
15 19226.23857 200 Left 65 57.0375 85 OK
16 19650.29108 200 Right 65 57.0375 85 OK
17 20129.19283 455 Right 65 30.95 55 OK
18 22246.61074 250 Left 65 52.5 75 OK
19 22438.02633 5000 Right 100 0 OK
20 22867.47664 305 Right 80 60 OK
3.3.4. Length of Horizontal Curves
The design plans were checked for the length of horizontal curves provided as per
clause 9.1.5 of IRC:73-1980. The plans were observed and the minimum length of
Horizontal curves are sufficient for entire project highway.
3.3.5. Broken Back Curve
As per clause 9.1.7 of IRC:73-1980 Broken back should be avoided as far as possible.
There is no broken back curve between km 0 to 24.
3.4 Vertical Alignment

3.4.1. Grade Changes
As per Clause 2.9.6.1 Grade changes should not be too frequent as to cause kinks and visual
Discontinuities in the profile. Desirably, there should be no change in grade within a distance

10
MODE
of 150m. The Grade change proposed in P&P drawing is sufficient for entire Project
Highway.
3.4.2. Gradient
As per clause 2.9.6.2 Ruling Gradient shall be adopted as far as possible. As per enclosed P&P
Rulling gradient is proposed only for this section.
3.4.3. Sight Distance
As per clause 2.9.5 the safe stopping sight distance and desirable minimum sight distance for
divided carriageway are given as below. For the divided carriageway Stopping Sight distance &
Desirable Minimum Sight Distance (Intermediate Sight distance) are relevant & valley curves
are designed as per head light consideration and as per clause 6.3.2 of IRC:SP:23 headlights is at
least equal to Safe stooping sight distance
Safe Sight Distance

Design Speed (km/h) Safe Stopping Sight Desirable Minimum Sight
Distance (m) Distance (m)
100 180 360
80 130 260
P&P drawings are designed considering the ISD Criteria.
Vertical Alignment report is attached in Para 3.4.4
3.4.4. Length of Vertical Curves
Long sweeping vertical curves shall be provided at all grade changes. Summit curves and
Valley curves shall be designed as square parabolas. The length of the vertical curve is
controlled by sight distance requirements. As per Table 7 of IRC:SP:23, The Maximum
grade change not requiring vertical curve and the minimum length of vertical curve shall be
as given as below.
Minimum Length of Vertical Curve

Design Speed (km/h) Maximum Grade Change Minimum Length of Vertical
(%) Not Requiring Vertical Curve (m)
Curve
100 0.5 percent 60
80 0.6 percent 50
As per Table 6 of IRC:SP:23

11
MODE
For Summit Curve

For design speed 100kmph
if L (Length of Curve) > S (Sight Distance), K value is equal to 135
For Valley Curve
For design speed 100kmph
As per Head light consideration,), K value is equal to 41.5
Provided Vertical Curve Details
VIP VIP
IN- OUT- CURVE LENGTH OF DESIGN
VIP No. CHAINAG LEVEL K-VALUE
GRADE GRADE TYPE CURVE SPEED
E (m) (m)
1 78.647 231.602 1.050% 0.439% Valley 100 114.114 100
2 456.79 233.263 0.439% -0.208% Summit 385 594.869 100
3 960.076 232.217 -0.208% 0.302% Valley 100 196.327 100
4 1115.211 232.685 0.302% -0.488% Summit 130 164.688 100
5 1318.266 231.694 -0.488% 0.130% Valley 100 161.845 100
6 2401.342 233.102 0.130% 0.150% Valley 100 5000 100
7 3088.59 234.133 0.150% 0.301% Valley 400 2651.238 100
8 3612.616 235.71 0.301% 0.100% Summit 250 1244.568 100
9 4518.682 236.616 0.100% 0.133% Valley 80 2432.832 100
10 5292.542 237.644 0.133% -0.107% Summit 100 416.815 100
11 5479.798 237.444 -0.107% 0.173% Valley 100 356.887 100
12 6309.982 238.881 0.173% -0.114% Summit 100 347.59 100
13 6531.008 238.628 -0.114% 0.112% Valley 100 440.956 100
14 7199.12 239.378 0.112% 0.147% Valley 100 2844.414 100
15 7989.041 240.542 0.147% 0.700% Valley 100 180.966 100
16 8144.246 241.629 0.700% -0.220% Summit 100 108.759 100
17 8470.757 240.912 -0.220% 0.149% Valley 100 271.444 100
18 8870.343 241.507 0.149% 0.292% Valley 100 700.619 100
19 9475.519 243.273 0.292% 0.243% Summit 100 2057.759 100
20 9980.515 244.5 0.243% 0.000% Summit 80 329.123 100
21 10242.543 244.5 0.000% -0.100% Summit 200 2000 100
22 10520.829 244.222 -0.100% 0.270% Valley 100 270.27 100
23 11214.012 246.093 0.270% -0.100% Summit 100 270.27 100
24 11667.749 245.64 -0.100% 0.203% Valley 100 330.214 100
25 12004.318 246.322 0.203% 0.428% Valley 165 733.47 100
26 12273.373 247.473 0.428% -0.280% Summit 100 141.164 100
27 12487.31 246.873 -0.280% 0.142% Valley 100 236.417 100
28 13009.643 247.617 0.142% -0.358% Summit 120 239.909 100
29 13246.839 246.768 -0.358% 0.178% Valley 240 447.887 100
30 13629.554 247.449 0.178% -0.200% Summit 350 925.839 100
31 13900.534 246.907 -0.200% 0.368% Valley 175 307.935 100
32 14279.926 248.305 0.368% 0.200% Summit 75 446.205 100
33 14544.005 248.833 0.200% 0.214% Valley 100 7081.868 100

12
MODE
VIP VIP
IN- OUT- CURVE LENGTH OF DESIGN
VIP No. CHAINAG LEVEL K-VALUE
GRADE GRADE TYPE CURVE SPEED
E (m) (m)
34 14777.732 249.334 0.214% 0.100% Summit 100 873.884 100
35 15480.213 250.036 0.100% 0.200% Valley 100 999.072 100
36 15805.47 250.687 0.200% -0.399% Summit 200 333.927 100
37 16013.949 249.855 -0.399% 0.150% Valley 100 182.171 100
38 16871.584 251.141 0.150% -0.120% Summit 250 925.926 100
39 17063.527 250.911 -0.120% 0.220% Valley 100 294.118 100
40 17637.988 252.175 0.220% 0.537% Valley 100 315.881 100
41 18058.554 254.432 0.537% 1.106% Valley 100 175.554 100
42 18695.492 261.477 1.106% -0.103% Summit 100 82.724 100
43 19038.403 261.125 -0.103% -0.893% Summit 100 126.51 65
44 19553.425 256.526 -0.893% -0.164% Valley 100 137.059 65
45 19991.069 255.81 -0.164% 0.300% Valley 100 215.755 65
46 20413.642 257.078 0.300% -0.358% Summit 260 395.163 100
47 20721.912 255.974 -0.358% 0.301% Valley 100 151.986 100
48 20881.943 256.455 0.301% -0.109% Summit 100 245.044 100
49 21083.731 256.236 -0.109% 0.100% Valley 100 480.563 100
50 22145.561 257.298 0.100% 0.271% Valley 100 584.524 100
51 22440.229 258.097 0.271% 0.337% Valley 100 1519.266 100
52 22718.657 259.035 0.337% -0.442% Summit 270 346.857 100
53 22940.623 258.055 -0.442% 0.275% Valley 100 139.474 100
54 23280.13 258.99 0.275% 0.100% Summit 100 569.92 100
55 23621.296 259.331 0.100% -0.178% Valley 100 2322.072 100

13
MODE
1. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROAD SECTION
1) Install speed limit signages at start and end point of the Built-up area and hazardous location if any.
2) Placement of signs is to be ensure all along the roads as per IRC: 67.
3) Junction drawing shall be prepared as per IRC SP:73:2018
4) Safety Barriers shall be provided as per IRC SP:73:2018
5) All signage should be placed as per height and clearance mentioned in Table 4.1 and Fig 4.1 of IRC: 67.
6) Detailed signage plan is to be submitted with junction Improvement measures
2. CHECKLIST FOR DESIGN STAGE AUDIT

Table: Checklist for Design Stage Audit (Table 7.3 of IRC: SP: 88-2019)
Sr
No Issue Yes No NA Comments
1. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

Will the design speed be "safe" with regard to horizontal and vertical
alignment? 
Does the alignment (horizontal and vertical) give sufficient forward
visibility for the selected design speed? (Check for inadequate stopping
sight distances)?

Will horizontal and vertical alignments be safe and consistent,
especially at interchanges and intersections? 
Will all merging, diverging and weaving areas be "safe"?

Is the proposal consistent with the adjacent road network?

Do the horizontal and vertical alignments fit together comfortably?
(Check for bad combinations, such as a sharp bend immediately after a
summit curve, and sag curve within a bend).

Will sight distances be satisfactory - especially at intersections and
property accesses? 
Does the alignment provide safe overtaking opportunities? Does it
avoid creating situations where the forward visibility is marginal for
overtaking (neither clearly adequate nor inadequate)?

Does the treatment at curves, proposed if any, make appropriate,
adequate and safe provision for transition curves, super elevation and
extra width of carriageway and formation?

Does the vertical alignment pose excessive demands on the power of
heavy vehicles? Has it been designed so those maximum grades are
interspersed with recovery grades?

2. Typical Cross Sections
Note any location where the cross-section standard changes abruptly
along the route or is otherwise inconsistent with driver expectations. 
14
MODE
Sr
Have the shoulders and side slopes been designed to a safe standard and
note any locations with inadequate shoulder width? 
Have the side drains been designed to a safe standard? Are the bailer
slopes and drains safe for run-off vehicles to traverse? 
Check whether the cross-section has adequate provision for the
Vulnerable Road Users including persons with disabilities:
(a) Pedestrians: Have paved footpath, adequate refuge width on median

and proper ramps, up and down kerbs, where there is regular pedestrian
traffic?
(b) Bicyclists: Segregated areas (e.g. paved shoulders) where numbers
are significant.
In particular, is the cross section wide enough to provide sheltered turn
lanes within the median (in case of divided carriageway? Is it possible
to provide storage lane for small vehicles that really need protection

without being exposed to through traffic.
If a median is proposed, will it be wide enough for the safe installation
of street lighting where required either during the proposed works or
later?

Are all roadside hazards (existing and proposed) being managed
"safely"? (NOTE: Check if a clear zone has been used during the
development of the proposal and assess if that clear zone will be

adequate).
Are shoulders proposed to be paved?

Are overtaking and/or climbing lanes proposed, especially in hill
sections? 
Is safe provision to be made for breakdown vehicles, and emergency
vehicles? 
3. New/existing Road Interface
Will the transition from old road to the new scheme be "safe"?

4. Staged Works
If the scheme is to be constructed in stages, are the stages arranged to
ensure maximum safety? 
Is the transition between single and dual carriageway (either way)
handled safely? 
5. Intersections
The type of junction (T-type, staggered, signal controlled, roundabout)
suitable for the function of the two or more roads, the traffic volume,
the traffic movements (pedestrians and vehicular) and the site

constraints?
Does the layout encourage slow controlled speed at and on the approach
to step/give way lines and other critical decision points? 
Are the number and distribution of proposed intersections suitable in
relation to the function of the new road, the surrounding road network,
and access for all traffic?

15
MODE
Sr
Are the Median openings for U-turn proposed to minimize wrong way
movements? 
Is each intersection easily identified and understood from all
approaches? 
Is there adequate provision for channelizing the different streams of
traffic? (Check the provision for right lurn lanes, deceleration lanes and
acceleration lanes?)

Is adequate provision made for pedestrians and non-motorised
vehicles? 
Are pedestrian crossing places marked, and are pedestrians channelled
to these crossings? 
Will all necessary turns (including U turns) be able to be made safely?

Are sight lines within each intersection adequate and free of obstruction
by fixed objects such as buildings, overpass structures, traffic signs or
vegetation?

Is the design free of all Y junctions?

Is the proposed traffic control at each intersection (Stop/Give Way,
roundabout, traffic signals) as “safe" as practical? 
Is the provision of night times lighting adequate, if not what are the
deficiencies? 
Will traffic signal control at the intersection(s) be clearly seen and
understood? 
With roundabouts, is adequate deflection provided for all approaches?

Are correct signs shown for all approaches to the roundabout?

For other intersections, are Stop/Give Way signs shown and correctly
located for maximum conspicuily? 
Is the specific designs/proposal and even typical layouts when applied
allows adequate visibility for an approaching driver to see a pedestrian
waiting to cross the road?

Is the specific designs/proposal and even typical layouts when applied
allows adequate visibility funnel for an approaching driver to see a
vehicle waiting to cross the carriageway from side road or storage lane

of median?
6. Interchanges
Are sight lines open and free of obstruction at all merges and diverges?
Are the distances between decisions making paints sufficient for
safety?
Is the signing scheme for each interchange clear and will it be easily
understood by road users?
Are all roadside hazards in the interchange identified and safely
protected?
16
MODE
Sr
7. Adjacent Land
Will all accesses to and from adjacent land/properties be “safe"?

Is fencing provided in rural areas to keep animals from straying onto
the road? 
8. Roadside Hazards
Are crash barriers provided only where necessary?

Is the type of each proposed barrier suitable forits location?

Do the standard drawings indicate that the barrier terminals will be a
suitably safe type? 
Are impact attenuators provided in gore area?

Do the standard drawings indicate a safe connection of the barrier to
bridge abutments, together with the necessary reduction in post spacing
to stiffen the barrier and prevent "pocketing".

9. Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, bicyclists, two
wheelers and three wheelers and animal drawn carts)
Do all vulnerable road users have connectivity along their route, with
suitable lateral clearance to motor traffic? 
Will pedestrians (particularly the young, old and disabled) be able to
safely walk along both sides of the road? 
Is the design free of ' squeeze" points where vulnerable road users may
be exposed to traffic? 
Will pedestrians (particularly the young, old and disabled) be able 10
safely cross the road? 
Are dropped kerbs provided at all intersections and mid-block locations
where pedestrians are to cross? 
If formal crossings are proposed, are these conspicuous on each
approach? 
Are the correct signs and pavement markings proposed for each
pedestrian facility? 
Will each crossing facility be well illuminated at night so that
pedestrians can be well seen by rivers/riders? 
If mid-block traffic signals are proposed, will these have pedestrian
push buttons? 
Are pedestrian paths to be provided through medians to permit
pedestrians to cross ' at road level' and to assist disabled pedestrians
with improved access?

17
MODE
Sr
Has adequate provision been made for safe parking and stopping by
three-wheelers/cycle rickshaws? 
10. Signs, Pavement Markings and Delineation
Do all signs (regulatory, warning and direction) shown in the DPR
accord with the 6 C's (Conspicuous, Clear, Comprehensible, Credible,
Consistent and Correct) of good signage and as per IRC: 67?

Are Informatory signs provided for the category/function road
proposed? (Check for Shoulder mounted and Gantry Signs) 
Overhead signs - size. message information adequate,
languages as per IRC standards 
Will all larger (more than 100mm diameter) sign supports be located
outside the clear zone or else be frangible? 
Is good delineation (curve warning signs, advisory speed signs, guide
posts and chevron alignment markers) provided where required? 
Safety Audit of VMS
i) Horizontal clearance of vertical post of sign from
carriageway edge

ii) Vertical clearance of VMS signs at highest point on
carriageway
iii) Readability of VMS signs during Day/Night.
Check for any unauthorized traffic signs and use of nonstandard signs
(colour and shape) 
location and spacing of signs
a) Note locations where there are too many signs placed
b) Note the signs placed too close 10 each other

Are all junctions provided with advance direction sign, distance
information sign and intersection sign etc.? 
Has correct type of pavement markings been used in various situations
(e.g. lane line, edge line etc.)? 
Are correct colour used for laying road markings?

Is there any deficiency in the delineation of merge and diverge areas,
including situations where 'through' traffic may inadvertently lead into
auxiliary and turn lanes?

Are zebra crossing markings provided at junctions and midblock of the
sections (depending upon the movement of pedestrian)? 
Is positioning of stop lines appropriate?

Are the directional arrows marked on the pavement guiding the driver
or creating confusion to the driver? 
Are there locations where there is a lack of "Hazard markings' at
approach end of island, medians and culverts/bridges etc.? 
Have retro-reflective markers/road studs been installed?
Where coloured markers are used, have they been installed correctly? 
18
MODE
Sr
If chevron alignment markers are installed, have the correct types of

markers been used? 
Do the drawings also indicate high quality reflective material (red on
left, white on right) atop each guide post? 
11. Parking
Have sealed and marked areas been provided for parking?

Will the parking be adequate and safe?
12. Emergency Service Vehicle Access
Has provision been made for safe access and movements by emergency
vehicles? 
Are median openings frequent, visible and well signed?

13. Lighting and Night Time Issues
Will all signs be located where they can be easily seen at night?

Are the critical locations (intersections, pedestrian facilities, Bus bays,
bus stops, truck lay bye, toll plaza etc.) proposed to be lit? 
Is lighting provided on road sections passing through built up areas,
service roads. above and below the grade separator, under-pass etc. 
Are the proposed lighting scheme and illumination levels of an
appropriate standard, consistent with the needs of the location,
pedestrian and other factors?

Will the proposed geometry be understandable for road users to
traverse at night? Do the standard drawings indicate that the lighting
columns will be frangible?

Do the standard drawings indicate that the lighting columns will be
frangible? 
If the columns are not frangible, have other actions been taken to make
these safe for road users? 
Are there any lighting poles in the median(less than 2m wide)
unprotected by crash barriers? 
Identify the locations where street lighting columns constitute a hazard
to traffic (on the outside of sharp curves, on small islands, noses of
medians) or which may conflict visually with traffic signals or signs?

14. Drainage
Does the design provide adequate drainage?

Will drains be covered, or located outside the clear zone. Or shielded
behind crash barrier? 
15. General Road Safety Considerations
Is the new road as safe as practical given the local weather (sunrise.
sunset, snow, fog, rain, wind)? 
19
MODE
Sr
Is the project free of all ·visual deceit"?


Is the road surface free of gravel and sand, and with good skid
resistance? 
Yes = Likely to be satisfactory for safety
No = There are possible safety issues, NA = Not applicable

20

DPM Rsa

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

DPM Rsa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of Rajasthan

Public Work Department

“DEVELOPMENT & MAINTENANCE OF DANTIWARA-

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

Contractor: Safety Consultant:

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................3

1.1 General Background ...........................................................................................................3

1.2 Project Features ..................................................................................................................3

1.3 Project salient features ........................................................................................................4

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................4

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................4

2.2 Methodology and Elements Contributing Road Safety ...................................................5

3.0 DETAILED DESIGN AUDIT FINDINGS .......................................................................7

3.1 Design stage Road Safety Audit .........................................................................................7

3.2 Safety Audit Checks ...........................................................................................................7

3.3 Horizontal Alignment .......................................................................................................7

3.4 Vertical Alignment ..........................................................................................................10

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

1.2 Project Features

1. Name of EPC Contractor- RSB Infra Pvt Ltd, Jaipur

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

1.3 Project salient features

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

designed and built to the highest safety standards.

 Emphasises on individual responsibility and road user behaviour

• Safe system approach –

 Human makes mistakes

 Humans are vulnerable

 No death or serious injury is acceptable

2.2 Methodology and Elements Contributing Road Safety

I. Collecting Project documents: this includes collecting project description, design

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

2.3 List of IRC Code:-

IRC Codes Description of the Code

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

IRC Codes Description of the Code

2.4 Accident Data Analysis

2.5 Definition of Black Spots

2.6 Extraction of Data

Name of No of Chainage Safety Concerns Recommendations

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

3 DETAILED DESIGN AUDIT FINDINGS

3.2 Safety Audit Checks

3.3 Horizontal Alignment

Terrain Desirable Minimum (m) Absolute Minimum (m)

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

3.3.2. Super elevation criteria

3.3.3. Transition Curves

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

3.3.4. Length of Horizontal Curves

3.3.5. Broken Back Curve

3.4 Vertical Alignment

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

3.4.3. Sight Distance

Safe Sight Distance

3.4.4. Length of Vertical Curves

Minimum Length of Vertical Curve

As per Table 6 of IRC:SP:23

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

For Summit Curve

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur

Apencia Consultant LLP, Jaipur