SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303-C Marrickville Utility Works · 2019. 3. 13. · Construction Traffic Management Plan – Marrickville Utility works SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303Construction

Construction Traffic Management Plan – Marrickville Utility works

Project: Sydney Metro City & Southwest – TSE Works

Document No: SMCSWTSE‐JCG‐DSY‐CN‐PLN‐002303

DOCUMENT APPROVAL REVISION DATE PREPARED

BY REVIEWED BY

APPROVED BY

REMARKS

A 22/10/17 Sue Lewis . Internal review

B 28/10/17 S Lewis N Bryant External review

C 18/12/17 S Lewis N Bryant T Ferrero For approval

D 22/12/17 S Lewis N Bryant T Ferrero For approval

Signature:

Marrickvillle Utility Works CTMP - Sydney Metro

Tino / SueIn accordance with Schedule C1 Appendix A.9 Section 2.1 ( c ) and 2.2 ( c ) of the Principal’s General Specifications G10 – Traffic and Transport Management and Minister’s Condition of Approval E82 for the Sydney Metro City & South West the Roads and Maritime Service of NSW and the Sydney Coordination Office approve the Sydney Metro City & South West Construction Traffic Management Plan – Marrickville Utility Works - TSE Works Rev D SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303 for utility relocation subject to the following requirements:

• Obtaining Road Occupancy Licences (ROLs) from the Transport Management Centre(TMC) for any required lane closures and/or speed reduction;

• Addressing any safety issues identified in the Road Safety Audit review of this CTMP;The Construction Traffic Management Plan is reviewed upon approval of the TMPframework documentation to ensure it aligns with the approval;

• Addressing any issues raised by Council, STA, Taxi Council, residents/businesses,Emergency Services in the CTMP approval process;

Addressing any issues raised through Council’s traffic committee;The Construction Traffic Management Plan being updated as required prior to construction commencing to ensure consistency with the final Construction Traffic Management Framework when it is approved;

• Access to commercial and residential properties is to be maintained safely at all times;• Approval from Council in relation to parking changes on Princes Highway should they be

long term; and• Promptly addressing any SCO and/or TMC and/or RMS issue that eventuates during the

worksRegards

Giovanny RamirezAssociate Director Operations CBD & EastCBD Transport Taskforce | Sydney Coordination Office Transport for NSW

Transport for NSWSydney Coordination Office25 Garden St | Bio Medical Bldg | Eveleigh 2015

RAMIREZ GiovannyTue 16/01/2018 11:38 AM

To:Tino Ferrero <Sydney Metro>; Sue Lewis <Sydney Metro>;

Cc:BERRY Adam <RMS>; ISSA Steven C <TMC Transport>; CHEN Chao <RMS>;


SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303Construction Traffic Management Plan – Marrickville Utility works Page 2 of 16

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4

1.1. Project Overview ......................................................................................................... 4

1.2. Purpose of this Plan .................................................................................................... 4

2. Locality and existing conditions ............................................................................... 5

2.1. Edinburgh Road .......................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Bedwin Road ............................................................................................................... 6

2.3. Edgeware Road ........................................................................................................... 6

2.4. Lord Street ................................................................................................................... 6

2.5. John Street .................................................................................................................. 6

2.6. Council Street .............................................................................................................. 7

2.7. May Street ................................................................................................................... 7

2.8. Princes Highway .......................................................................................................... 7

3. Site operations ............................................................................................................ 7

3.1. Works Required ........................................................................................................... 7

3.2. Operating Conditions ................................................................................................... 8

4. Other Considerations ............................................................................................... 10

4.1. Road Safety Audits .................................................................................................... 10

4.2. Weekly Traffic Forecast ............................................................................................. 10

4.3. Police and Emergency Services ................................................................................ 10

4.4. Communications and the community ........................................................................ 10

4.5. Inspections and monitoring ....................................................................................... 12

4.6. Environmental Management ..................................................................................... 12

4.7. Site Contacts ............................................................................................................. 12

4.8. References ................................................................................................................ 12

Appendix 1 Traffic control plans and implementation .................................................... 13

Appendix 2 Road safety audit ............................................................................................ 15

Appendix 3 Review comments .......................................................................................... 16



Figures Figure 1 Sydney Metro Project ............................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Marrickville Utility Works .......................................................................................... 5

Tables Table 1: Parking impacts and alternatives .............................................................................. 9

Table 2 Proposed Communications ...................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................ 11

Table 4: Site contacts ........................................................................................................... 12



1. Introduction

1.1. Project Overview

The Sydney Metro is Australia’s biggest public transport project. The metro project currently consists of:

Stage one is the Sydney Metro Northwest, formerly the North West Rail Link, connecting the north western suburbs of Sydney, through to Chatswood.

Stage two is the City & South West project linking Chatswood through to Sydenham. Stage three includes the upgrade of the existing rail line between Sydenham and

Bankstown.

Figure 1 shows the proposed Sydney Metro project and stages.

Figure 1 Sydney Metro Project

1.2. Purpose of this Plan

The purpose of this Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP): MARRICKVILLE UTILITY WORKS is to detail the site operations for the utility relocation phase of the Sydney Metro City & South West project. This plan will set out the traffic management initiative that will be deployed to minimise disruption to, and ensure the safety of the wide range of stakeholders potentially affected by the works, including but not limited to: motorists, pedestrians; cyclists;



public transport users, local residents and property owners; business owners; and workers/staff engaged on the Project.

2. Locality and existing conditions

The Marrickville Dive site is bounded by Sydney Steel Road to the west, Edinburgh Road to the north, Sydenham rail corridor to the east and a water treatment adjacent to Garden Street. The Utility works required for the site operations is highlighted on Figure 2 below. The existing parking restrictions at the site are detailed below.

Figure 2: Marrickville Utility Works

2.1. Edinburgh Road

Edinburgh Road is a local road under the care and control of Inner West Council. It commences at Bedwin Road and ends at Victoria Road in Enmore. The speed limit is 60km/hr. This area has substantial industrial land uses with high heavy vehicle use. Edinburgh Road is one of the main access points into the Marrickville Metro Shopping Centre and the industrial areas of Sydenham and Marrickville.



Roundabouts exist at the intersections of Railway Parade and Murray Street. significant drainage infrastructure and driveways exists on the southern side of Edinburgh Road.

No bus stops exist on this section of Edinburgh Road, bus service 355 travels along Edinburgh Road.

Parking is typically unrestricted in the area, with No Stopping signposted at all intersections.

There is no on road cycling facility. The footpaths are 1.6m with verges typically located between the footpath and roadway (2.1m). there are no pedestrian crossing facilities along Edinburgh Road other than the use of the splitter islands located at the roundabouts

2.2. Bedwin Road

Bedwin Road is classified as a local road and is under the control of council. Bedwin Road commence at Unwins Bridge Road and ceases at Edgeware Road. The speed limit on Bedwin Road is the default speed limit of 50km/hr.

There are no bus stops on Bedwin Road. There are No Stopping restrictions along its length.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1.2m wide. There are no cycling facilities on this section of Bedwin Road, however there is on road cycle lane markings at its intersection with Edinburgh Road.

2.3. Edgeware Road

Edgeware Road is classified as a local road which connects Stanmore Road to Railway Parade. The default speed limit of 50km/hr applies.

Parking is available along most of Edgeware Road and is unrestricted in the section between Darley Street and Lord Street, where the works are proposed.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1m wide between Darley Street and Lord Street on the north-eastern side. There is no footpath on the south-western side. There are no cycling facilities.

2.4. Lord Street

Lord Street is classified as a local road which connects King Street to Edgeware Road. Lord Street is one way southwest (ie from King Street to Edgeware Road). The default speed limit of 50km/hr applies. Lord Street is typically 7.0m in width with a 2.7 to 2.8m travel lane.

Parking is available along both sides of Lord Street and is time restricted.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1m wide. There are no cycling facilities.

2.5. John Street

John Street is classified as a local road which connects the rail lines through to Wells Street. The default speed limit of 50km/hr applies. John Street is typically 7.0m in width with a 2.7 to 2.8m travel lane. John Street is a No Through Road from Lord Street to the rail lines and services 1 driveway.

Parking is available along both sides of John Street and is time restricted.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1m wide. There are no cycling facilities.



2.6. Council Street

Council Street is classified as a local road which connects the rail lines through to May Street. Council Street is one way from Goodsell Street through to May Street. The default speed limit of 50km/hr applies. Council Street is typically 7.0m in width with a 2.7 to 2.8m travel lane. Council Street is a No Through Road from Goodsell Street to the rail lines. It services 1 property and Camdenville Oval parking area. Parking is available along both sides of Council Street and is time restricted.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1m wide. There are no cycling facilities although a shared path through Camdenville Oval ends at Council Street.

2.7. May Street

May Street is classified as a regional road which connects Unwins Bridge Road through to the Princes Highway. The default speed limit of 50km/hr applies. May Street is typically 2 travel lanes with parking available from Applebee Street through to Bedwin Road on both sides of the road.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1m wide. There are no cycling facilities. No bus stops or known bus routes use May Street.

2.8. Princes Highway

Princes Highway is classified as a state road and forms one of only 2 continuous links between Sydney and Melbourne. The speed limit of 60km/hr applies. Turning movements at its intersection with May Street are signal controlled. Pedestrian crossings are only located across May Street and on the southern approach on Princes Highway. No parking is available near this location.

The existing footpaths are approximately 1.2m wide. There are no cycling facilities.

Bus routes 348 and 422 use the Princes Highway. Route 348 ceases services at 11PM weekdays and Saturdays with services ceasing earlier on a Sunday. Route 422 ceases services inbound at 1130PM and outbound services at 1230AM weekdays and Saturdays – earlier on Sundays.

3. Site operations

Duration: 4 months Timing: 8th January to April 2018

3.1. Works Required

Ausgrid works include the installation of TBM power supply across Edinburgh Road at the roundabout, across Bedwin Road, on Edgeware Road between Lord Street and Darley Street using existing conduits, Lord Street between Edgeware Road and John Street using existing conduits except at the intersection of John Street, under bore from John Street through to Council Street under the rail lines, along Council Street into May Street and across the Princes Highway jointing into existing HV feeders located in the eastern footpath of the Princes Highway near Sydney Park.

Work to be undertaken in Murray Street is capping of the existing watermain. The works are immediately adjacent to the site boundary. Access to the driveway for Cas Del Desserts will be maintained at all times.



3.2. Operating Conditions

Works to be undertaken at night are proposed at the following locations:

Edinburgh Road – trenching across and along Edinburgh Road for its full width from the Railway Parade roundabout through to Bedwin Road – 4-6 shifts

Bedwin Road – trenching across the road from Edinburgh Road to Edgeware Road – 2-4 shifts

May Street from Council Street through to the Princes Highway – trenching works are within the parking lane – 6-10 shifts

Princes Highway from May Street across to the footpath adjacent to Sydney Park 4-6 shifts

Works to be undertaken during the day are proposed at the following locations:

Edgeware Road between Bedwin Road and Lord Street – using existing conduits – 2-3 shifts

Lord Street between 20m west of John Street and John Street – trenching within the existing parking lane – 3-4 shifts

Lord Street between 20m west of John Street and Edgeware Road – using existing conduits – 2 shifts

John Street – closure at Lord Street for approximately 2 weeks Council Street – closure at Goodsell Street for approximately 2 weeks Murray Street – stop/ slow/ lane closure near site for approximately 1 week.

Refer to Appendix 1 for Traffic control plans. The works will happen progressively along the nominated corridor for the Ausgrid works. The water main works in Murray Street will be undertaken at any time.

3.2.1. Impact on Traffic Flows

The operation of the site will have minimal impact on existing traffic conditions as it is proposed to undertake the works on high volume roads at night. The roads will be returned to its current operation by 0500 every morning. Steel plates may be used, but in most instances backfilling of the trench will be undertaken. If steel plates are used TSE will ensure that they are duly secured by asphalt ramps and that appropriate warning is given to motorists

For works proposed during the day, these works are on local roads which have no significant traffic flows.

3.2.2. Impact on Public Transport

There is no long-term impact on public transport as there are no existing bus stops along the streets impacted by the works. It is noted that 1 bus service uses Edgeware Road/ Railway Parade.

3.2.3. Impact on Pedestrians and Cyclists

Depending on the outcome of the service investigation works, there may be minor pedestrian diversions during the works, especially where works impact on the footpath area. Pedestrians may be diverted during works at the following locations:

Lord Street – parking lane trenching – pedestrians diverted to the opposite side of the road

Edgeware Road – footpath trenching – pedestrians diverted to parking lane



Where pedestrians are required to be diverted onto the road way, reduced speed limits, separation between traffic and pedestrians and traffic controllers will be used to provide safe passage.

3.2.4. Impacts on commercial and residential access

There are numerous commercial and residential properties along the route. Driveway access will be maintained at all locations except for Council Street and John Street (1 driveway at each location) Discussions will be held with residents on alternate arrangements during the works. Pedestrian access to properties will be maintained through the works using plating to provide a smooth traversable surface.

3.2.5. Impact on street parking

There is no long-term impact on parking, however, during the works parking on Edgeware Road, Lord Street, John Street, Council Street and May Street will be impacted. Refer to Table 1 for impacts and alternatives available.

Table 1: Parking impacts and alternatives

LOCATION DURATION SPACES AFFECTED ALTERNATIVES

Edgeware Road between Lord St and Bedwin Rd1

2-3 shifts 4 (restricted 2P) Edgeware Road southside/ Railway Parade

Lord Street 3-4 shifts 16 at any one time (restricted 2P)

Edgeware Road/ John Street

John Street 2 weeks 3 (unrestricted) John Street west of Lord Street

Council Street (north of Goodsell Street)

2 weeks 6 (unrestricted ( Council Street south of Goodsell Street, Goodsell Street

Council Street (south of Goodsell Street)

2 weeks 10 (unrestricted) Council Street north of Goodsell Street or May Street

May Street2 6-10 shifts 16 at any one time (restricted P)

May Street, Goodsell Street, Council Street

3.2.6. Cumulative impacts

It is noted that there is advertising of apartment construction on Edinburgh Road, but no details are provided on timing of the works. From site inspections the site has been dormant for quite a while.

WestConnex has commenced works on Campbell Street and have intermittent closures of Campbell Street, east of Unwins Bridge Road. WestConnex have also undertaken partial road/ lane closures on May Street and the Princes Highway. We will continue to liaise with

1 Most properties have off street parking 2 Most properties have off street parking



WestConnex directly and through the Sydney Coordination Office on works that have the potential to impact on either project

3.2.7. Special Events

In reviewing Inner West Council’s website for special events near the site, there are no special events listed, which would be impacted by the works.

3.2.8. Traffic Control Plan (TCP) / Road Occupancy License (ROL) Identified Works

Works that have been identified as requiring a Traffic Control Plan are detailed below. Appendix 0 provides details on expected durations, timing for implementation, the works being undertaken and the expected traffic impacts.

1. Traffic control on Edinburgh Road, Bedwin Road, Edgeware Road, Lord Street, John Street, Council Street, May Street and the Princes Highway

3.2.9. Inner West Council required approvals

Works that have been identified as requiring Council approval include:

1. Road opening permits

4. Other Considerations

4.1. Road Safety Audits

Road safety audits will be undertaken during the development of the CTMP and upon implementation of the long-term work site. Refer to Appendix 2 for the audit report.

4.2. Weekly Traffic Forecast

A weekly traffic forecast is provided to local councils, RMS, Emergency Services, TfNSW, SCO and other stakeholders as requested. This forecast details the up and coming works and details of timings including hours of the day and dates of works that will impact traffic- road, public transport, pedestrians and cyclist.

4.3. Police and Emergency Services

The Police and relevant Emergency Services will be informed in a timely manner of relevant activities proposed within this CTMP. The initial communication to these stakeholders will be via the Traffic and Transport Liaison Group (TTLG). Regular updates will be provided to emergency services, including changes to road network configurations, changes to road conditions and worksite access locations, through emails and face to face discussions.

4.4. Communications and the community

The TSE will be responsible for the dissemination of information to the community including affected residents, relevant Councils, businesses and the public. Refer to Sydney Metro Community Consultation Strategy – Early Works.

Any enquiries, complaints and/ or compliments are to be directed to the TfNSW’s Sydney Metro Project Information line - 1800 171 386 or via email to: [email protected] or Sydney Metro City & Southwest, PO Box K659, Haymarket, NSW 1240 or Sydney Metro City & Southwest Website.



Table 2 provides the proposed communications to be implemented for this CTMP

Table 2 Proposed Communications

NOTIFICATION APPLICABLE

Community notice YES

Precinct update/ e-update YES

Email YES

Internet YES

Community information centre NO

On site briefings YES

Print advertising YES – Quarterly newsletter only

Variable message signs NO

Advanced warning signs YES

4.4.1. Travelling public

Where our works will impact on the travelling public we will undertake the following:

Public transport interruptions will be communicated via on site signage Motoring public will be forewarned of any changes, including road closures, road changes

and lane closures well in advance using appropriate signage, including variable message signs (VMS), where identified on the plans.

Pedestrians and cyclists will be provided with advance warning signs

4.4.2. Stakeholders consulted

Table 3Error! Reference source not found. identifies the stakeholders consulted during the development of this CTMP:

Table 3: Stakeholder Consultation

STAKEHOLDER DATE CONSULTATION MAIN CONTACT PEOPLE

TCG 17 Oct 2017 All members SCO/ TfNSW/ IWC/ RMS

TTLG 26 Oct 2017 All members SCO/ TfNSW/ Councils/ ES/ RMS

Inner West Council 29 Oct 2017 CTMP Submission Emilio Andari

RMS 29 Oct 2017 CTMP Submission Ian McCarthy

SCO 29 Oct 2017 CTMP Submission Aaron Gale/ Justine Bryant

TfNSW 30 Oct 2017 CTMP Submission Berin Gordon

Inner West Council 18 Dec 2017 CTMP Resubmission Emilio Andari/ John Stephens

RMS 18 Dec 2017 CTMP Resubmission Ian McCarthy/ Chao Chen

SCO 18 Dec 2017 CTMP Resubmission Giovanny Ramirez/ Aaron Gale/ Justine Bryant

TfNSW 18 Dec 2017 CTMP Resubmission Berin Gordon



4.5. Inspections and monitoring

The site will be monitored by the site supervisor. Any changes as noted in this CTMP, to signs/ lines that impact on the public will be monitored daily during site operating hours.

Traffic control used for pedestrian management, lane closures etc will need to provide records of the traffic control implemented. Any changes required to the traffic control set up will be authorised by a holder of an RMS “Prepare a Work Zone Traffic Management Plan” or equivalent.

4.6. Environmental Management

All works will be undertaken in accordance with the TSE Construction Environmental Management Plan (SMCTSE-JCG-TPW-EM-PLN-002010) and associated sub plans including the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (SMCSTSE-JCG-TPW-EM-PLN-002012). The TSE Works are also regulated by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and works to be undertaken outside of standard construction hours will need to comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection License.

4.7. Site Contacts

Table 4: Site contacts

NAME POSITION CONTACT #

Fernando Tinolo Project Engineer

Kevin Redmond Utilities Foreman

4.8. References

The following documents were used in the development of this CTMP:

Construction Traffic Management Framework – TfNSW, Tender version Principal’s General Specification G10 Traffic and Transport Management, v2.0 Roads and Maritime Service Traffic Control at Worksites Manual v 4.0 Relevant AustRoads Guides and RMS Supplements Sydney Metro Principal Contractor Health and Safety Standard



Appendix 1 Traffic control plans and implementation

TCP # LOCATION FROM TO TIMING TRAFFIC CONTROL

WORKS IMPACTS

SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0001

Edinburgh Road

West of Railway Parade

North of roundabout

Nights Stop/ Slow/ lane closure

Trenching Lane closures and stop/ slow at night and/ or outside of peak periods

No stopping restrictions through the work site


Edinburgh Road

West of Bedwin Road

Bedwin Road





Bedwin Road Edinburgh Road

Edgeware Road





Lord Street John Street Edgeware Road

Days Stop/ Slow/ lane closure

Trenching Lane closures and stop/ slow will impact residents

Removal of parking through the installation of No Stopping restrictions through the work site


Council and John Streets

Rail Lines To next cross street

Days Road closures Trenching Road closures

Removal of parking through the installation of No Stopping restrictions through the work site


May Street Council Street

Princes Highway

Nights Stop/ Slow/ lane closures



SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-

Princes Highway

May Street Sydney Park Nights Stop/ Slow/ lane closures




TCP # LOCATION FROM TO TIMING TRAFFIC CONTROL

WORKS IMPACTS

TCP-002303-0007



Princes Highway





Princes Highway





Edgeware Road

Bedwin Road Lord Street Days Stop/ Slow/ lane closures

Trenching Removal of parking through the installation of No Stopping restrictions through the work site


Council Street Goodsell Street

May Street Days Stop/ Slow/ lane closures

Trenching Removal of parking through the installation of No Stopping restrictions through the work site


Murray Street Edinburgh Road

Site All Stop/ Slow/ lane closures

Trenching Lane closures and stop/ slow

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE

AUTHORISED TRAFFICCONTROLLER

700 MM TRAFFIC CONESWITH REFLECTIVE NIGHT STRIP WITH 220 MM SPACING

LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017

*Traffic control works shall be installed & maintained in accordance with A.S. 1742.3 (Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads) & RTA Traffic controlat Work Sites Manual Version 4 June 2010.

*Local constraints may not allow sign and devices to be placed exactlyin accordance withthe TCP, therefore it may be necessary to place sign and devices as close as possible to the spacing indicated.

*Signs should generally placed 1 metre clear of the travelled path.

*Signs are to be Class 1 retro-reflective (day/night)

Install as per TCP and in accordance with any changes as shown on TCP

Team Leader (Onsite):

Signature:

Date:

Ticket: Orange/Red/Yellow (Circle Appropriate)

Ticket No:

Reasons for modification:

Email to: [email protected]

AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

EDINBURGH ROAD,MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

EDINBURGH ROAD

EDINBURGH ROAD

EDINBURGH ROAD

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

RA

ILWAY

PAR

AD

E

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

LORD STREET

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

DARLEY STREET

SMIDMORE STREET

ON

LY

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

T1-5

-2 *

40

RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-2

12

PR

EP

AR

ET

OS

TO

P

T1-18

T1-200-2*

15M 15M 15M 15M 15M

T5-5

NOT TO SCALE

N

40EN

D

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

T1-5-2 *

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

T1-5-2 *

40ROADWORK

R4-212

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

45M

45M

45M

45M

45M

ROAD WORK

ON SIDE ROAD

30MM

ER

GE

TA

PE

R

T1-200-2*

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *

ROAD WORK

ON SIDE ROAD

T1-25

45M

45M

45M

40

END

R4-12

40END

R4-12

T5-5

T5-5

PR

EPA

RE

TO

STO

PT1-1

8

T1-200-2*15M15M

SCOPE OF WORKS: STOP/SLOW WORKS

*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER ASSIST WORK VEHICLE ENTRY & EXIT.

*RESIDENTS & BUSINESS ACCESS TO BE MAINTAINED ALL TIMES.

*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER & SIGN LOCATION ON PLAN IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSEONLY & WILL CHANGE ACCORDINGLY.

* TRAFFIC CONTROLLER ENSURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE ESCAPE ROUTE.

* TWO WAY RADIO TO BE USED WITH CLEAR COMMUNICATION BEFOR RELEASING TRAFFIC.

* ENSURE EXCLUSION ZONE IS FORMED ON FOOTWAYS ALONG WORK ZONES.

*APPROPRIATE LIGHTING TO BE PROVIDED FOR NIGHT WORKS

NIGHTROADWORK

AHEAD

T1-223 * T1-224 *

NOTE: SIGNS TO BE USED AT NIGHT

T1-200-3*

www.invarion.com

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

EDINBURGH ROAD,MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

EDINBURGH ROAD

EDINBURGH ROAD

EDINBURGH ROAD

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

RA

ILWAY

PAR

AD

E

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

LORD STREET

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

DARLEY STREET

SMIDMORE STREET

ON

LY

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

T1-5

-2 *

40

RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-2

12

PR

EP

AR

ET

OS

TO

P

T1-18

T1-200-2*

15M 15M 15M 15M 15M

NOT TO SCALE

N

T1-5-2 *

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

15M

15M

15M

15M

T1-5-2 *

40ROADWORK

R4-212

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

45M

45M

45M

45M

45M

T1-200-2*

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *

45M

45M

45M

40END

R4-12

SCOPE OF WORKS: TURNING LANE CLOSURE








NIGHTROADWORK

AHEAD

T1-223 * T1-224 *


T1-200-3*

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

40

END

R4-12

40END

R4-12

T5-5

ROAD WORK

ON SIDE ROAD

T1-25

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

www.invarion.com

SCOPE OF WORKS: LATERAL SHIFT CLOSURE/ALLOW 3.2 TRAFFIC FLOW, STOP/SLOW








NIGHTROADWORK

AHEAD

T1-223 * T1-224 *


T1-200-3*

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

BEDWIN ROAD, MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

EDINBURGH ROAD

EDINBURGH ROAD

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

RA

ILWAY

PAR

AD

E

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

LORD STREET

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

DARLEY STREET

SMIDMORE STREET

ON

LY

40ROADWORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

45M

45M

45M

45M

T5-5

60M

MERGE

TAPER

40ROADW

ORK

T1-5-2 *

ROAD WORK

AHEADT1-1

15M

15M

15M

T1-5-2 *

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

15M

15M

15M

15M

T1-5-2 *

ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

T1-200-2*

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

45M

45M

45M

45M

45M

T5-5

MAINTAIN 3.2M TRAFFIC FLOWBOTH NORTH & SOUTH DIRECTIONS

40END

R4-12

40END

R4-12

40EN

D

R4-1

2

www.invarion.com

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017REV DATE: 18/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

LORD ST, MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

NOSTOPPING

NOSTOPPING

NOSTOPPING

NOSTOPPING

LORD STREET

JOH

N S

TR

EE

T

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

T1-5

-2 *

PR

EP

AR

ET

OS

TO

P

T1-1

8

T1-2

00-2

*

15M

15M

15M

15M

NOT TO SCALE

N

ON

LY

ON

LYT5-5T5-5

WORK ZONEMAX 50M AREA

EN

DR

OA

D W

OR

K

T2-1

6

T1-5-2 *

15M

www.invarion.com

NOT TO SCALE

N

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

JOHN ST, MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

SID

E R

OA

DC

LO

SE

D

T1-3

2

SID

E R

OA

DC

LO

SE

D

T1-3

2

ROAD CLOSEDAHEAD

T2-Q02a

T1-5

-2 *

40 RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-2

12

40ROADWORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *

T1-5

-2 *

ROAD CLOSEDT2-4

NOTHROUGH

ROAD

NO

NOTHROUGH

ROAD

NO

40EN

D

R4-

12

ROAD CLOSEDT2-4

40END

R4-12GOODSELL STREET

CO

UN

CIL

ST

RE

ET

JOH

N S

TR

EE

T

LORD STREET

ONEWAY

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

ON

EW

AY

ON

EW

AY

SCOPE OF WORKS: BORE COMPOUND

*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TO ASSIST WORK VEHICLE ENTRY & EXIT.*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TO CARRY OUT PEDESTRIAN MANAGEMENT.*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TO INSTALL PRE-WARNING SINGS ACCORDING TO THE WORK LOCATION*TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TO ENSURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE ESCAPE ROUTE.*TWO WAY RADIO COMMUNICATION NEEDED IF REQUIRED.*ENSURE EXCLUSION ZONE ZONE IS FORMED ON FOOTPATHS ALONG WORK ZONES

RAIL TRACKS

www.invarion.com

NOT TO SCALE

N

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

MAY ST, MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

CO

UN

CIL

ST

RE

ET

CAROLINE LN

GOODSELL STREET

MAY

LA

NE

PR

INC

ES

HW

Y

T1-200-2*PREPARE

TOSTOP

T1-18

40ROADWORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *ROAD WORK

AHEAD

T1-1

T1-5

-2 *

T1-2

00-2

*P

RE

PA

RE

TO

ST

OP

T1-1

840R

OA

DW

OR

K

R4-2

12

T1-5

-2 *

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

PARKING LANEPARKING LANE PARKING LANE PARKING LANE

T1-200-2*PREPARE TOSTOP

T1-18

T1-5-2 *

15M 15M 15M 15M 15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M15

M

ON

E W

AY

ON

E W

AY

SCOPE OF WORKS: PARKING LANE CLOSURE*T/C TO ASSIST WORK VEHICLE ENTRY & EXIT.*T/C & SIGN LOCATION ON PLAN IF FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE ONLY & WILL CHANGE ACCORDINGLY.*T/C TO ENSURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE ESCAPE ROUTE.*TWO WAY RADIOS TO BE USED IF REQUIRED.*ENSURE EXCLUSION ZONE IF FORMED ON FOOTWAYS ALONG WORK ZONES.Eg: CONES,, TIGER TAILS & SAFETY BARRIERS.

WORK ZONEMAX 50M AREA

AT A TIME

40END

R4-12

TO BE PLACED ACCORDINGTO END WORK ZONES.

MAY STREET

www.invarion.com

*TRAFFIC LOOP ACTIVATION BY TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

*TC TO ACTIVATE TRAFFIC LOOP FOR PRINCES HWY TRAFFIC

NOT TO SCALE

NWORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017REV DATE: 22/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

MAY ST/PRINCES HWY,MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

KE

EP

CLE

AR

ON

E W

AY

NIG

HT

RO

AD

WO

RK

AH

EA

D

T1-223 *

T1-224 *

40RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-212

15M

15M

15M

40ROAD WORK

R4-212

T1-224 * NIGHT ROADWORK AHEAD

T1-223 *

45M

45M

45M

45M

40

END

R4-12

PR

INC

ES

HW

Y

MAY STREET

AP

PLE

BE

E S

TR

EE

T

MA

Y L

AN

E

SCOPE OF WORKS: LANE CLOSURES

*T/C TO ASSIST WORK VEHICLE ENTRY & EXIT.*T/C TO MONITOR PEDESTRIAN MANAGEMENT.*T/C & SIGN LOCATION ON PLAN IF FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE

ONLY & WILL CHANGE ACCORDINGLY.*T/C TO ENSURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE ESCAPE ROUTE.*TWO WAY RADIOS TO BE USED IF REQUIRED.*ENSURE EXCLUSION ZONE IF FORMED ON FOOTWAYS ALONG WORK ZONES.*T/C TO SLOW TRAFFIC ONLY, TRAFFIC SIGNALS REMAIN IN OPERATION.

40E

ND R4-

12

60MMERGETAPER

90MLATERALSHIFT

60MMERGETAPER

T5-5

T5-5

T5-5

T5-5

www.invarion.com

SCOPE OF WORKS: PARKING LANE CLOSURE








NIGHTROADWORK

AHEAD

T1-223 * T1-224 *


EDINBURGH ROAD

BE

DW

IN R

OA

D

BE

DW

IN R

OA

DRA

ILWAY

PAR

AD

E

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

ED

GE

WA

RE

RO

AD

LORD STREET

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

ONE

WAY

DARLEY STREETSMIDMORE STREET

ON

LY

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017REV DATE: 22/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

EDGEWARE RD,MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

NOT TO SCALE

N

T1-200-2*

PREPARE

TO

STOP

T1-18

40ROAD

WORK

R4-212

T1-5-2 *

15M

15M

15M

PAR

KIN

G LN

PAR

KIN

G LN

T5-5

www.invarion.com

NOT TO SCALE

N

WORK VEHICLE

WORK ZONE



LEGEND

TRAFFIC CONTROLPLAN

DATE: 05/12/2017







Signature:

Date:


Ticket No:



AREA:

LOCATION:

TCP NO:

SHEET NO:

DSY

COUNCIL ST, MARRICKVILLE


1 OF 1

DRAWN BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

PLAN CHECKED BY:

CERTIFICATE NO:

SIGNATURE:

SAMANTH JADALA

0044399691

SUE LEWIS

0022818927

SAFETY BARRIERS

TRAFFIC FLOW

CO

UN

CIL

ST

RE

ET

CAROLINE LN

GOODSELL STREET

MAY

LA

NE

PR

INC

ES

HW

Y

T1-2

00-2

*P

RE

PA

RE

TO

ST

OP

T1-1

8 40 RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-2

12

T1-5

-2 *

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

T1-2

00-2

*P

RE

PA

RE

TO

ST

OP

T1-1

8 40 RO

AD

WO

RK

R4-2

12

T1-5

-2 *

RO

AD

WO

RK

A

HE

AD

T1-1

PARKING LANE

15M15M15M15M15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

15M

ON

E W

AY

ON

E W

AY

SCOPE OF WORKS: PARKING LANE CLOSURE*T/C TO ASSIST WORK VEHICLE ENTRY & EXIT.(VIA MAY STREET)*T/C & SIGN LOCATION ON PLAN IF FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSE ONLY & WILL CHANGE ACCORDINGLY.*T/C TO ENSURE THERE IS AN ADEQUATE ESCAPE ROUTE.*TWO WAY RADIOS TO BE USED IF REQUIRED.*ENSURE EXCLUSION ZONE IF FORMED ON FOOTWAYS ALONG WORK ZONES.

40END

R4-12

TO BE PLACED ACCORDINGTO END WORK ZONES.

MAY STREET

NOTHROUGH

ROAD

NO

RAIL TRACKS

www.invarion.com

OVERBRIDG

E

OVER

BRIDGE

OVERB

RIDGE

/

/ /

/ /

/

/

0 5 20 25m1510

SCALE 1:500 AT ORIGINAL SIZE

SCALE:

OF

SCALEPROJECT

Plot Date: Cad File No:29 October 2017 - 5:23 PM C:\Users\samue\OneDrive\FDConsulting\102-SUELEWISCONSULTING\13-SYDNEYMETRO\002303-MARRICKVILLE\TCP-0012-MURRAYSTLANECLOSURE\002303-TCP-0012-P1.dwg

DRAWN BY:

DRW CHECK:

APPROVED:

IND REVIEW:

DRAWING No:

SHEET

REVISIONHEIGHT DATUM:COORDINATE SYSTEM:

SYDNEY METRO

SYDNEY METRO

MARRACKVILLEUTILITY RELOCATION WORKS

MURRAY ST PARTIAL ROAD CLOSURE

1 1

P1

LS

SS



Appendix 2 Road safety audit

RSA-06386

Page 1 of 7 Sydney Metro City and South West

Road Safety Audit Report SHORT FORMAT

Title Sydney Metro City and South West RSA P/L Reference RSA-06386 Sub-Title / Work Package Construction Traffic Management Plan

Marrickville Utility Works Report Date 30 October 2017

Audit Stage Desktop Lead (Senior) Auditor Secondary Auditor / Reviewer

Peter Harris Chris Keramidas, Anthea Jennings

Client John Holland CPB Ghella

TMP / Drawings Construction Traffic Management Plan: SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0001 to 5 SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0007 to 9

Report Provider Road Safety Audits P/L Scope: The scope of the audit is to assess the construction traffic management plans on their merits and in the context of the road environment, not compliance-checking to standards and guidelines.

RSA-06386


Sydney Metro City and South West T Audit Point Comment / Suggestion

John Holland CPB Ghella Contact:

Response

x Status

y Headers*****

1. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0001 There are two sets of traffic controller approach warning signs on Edgwear Road, presumably warning of the TC on the side road.

These are not appropriate for Edgewear Road. There should be one set on the side road itself (traffic has turned at low speed).

Accept Drawing amended

2. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0002 The ‘left / right’ sign is confusing and could lead a driver the wrong way (yellow line). Also, it’s unnecessary.

It is strongly suggested that it be omitted. Accept Drawing amended

RSA-06386




Response

x Status

y Headers*****

3. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0002 The bollards used to channel drivers away from the worksite seem to have minimal buffer between where the driver movement occurs and the beginning of the site (considering the curve).

Review appropriateness of offset /risk / works / protection.

Reject This is low speed environment coming around a corner. The area is quite wide and sufficient buffer is provided

RSA-06386




Response

x Status

y Headers*****

4. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0002 and 0003 Several arrays of traffic controller / prepare to stop signs are shown, but they don’t appear to be relevant.

Review. (either omit the signs or show the traffic controllers, or both)


5. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0003 Northbound on Bedwin Road, traffic is being merged into the left lane which is a turn lane.

It is strongly suggested that lane status signs be provided to indicate: a. The merge b. The lane configuration intent which is

to breech the road rules and progress north within the turn lane


6. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-005 All of the approach signs seem irrelevant. All that is happening is a road closed ahead.

Replace signs with one sign ‘road closed ahead’ or side road closed ahead’.


7. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-007 1. The use of the lane status sign on Princes Highway

is not supported. There is no driver ‘decision’ and no changed lane configuration. They are merely blocked from one of two turn lanes.

2. The lane status sign on May Street looks good on paper but will be highly confusing at night.

3. The lane status sign on Appleby Street would by highly confusing and lost on these side road drivers.

1. Omit signs. 2. Omit the two ‘closed lane’ symbols

(unnecessary with the volumes). 3. Omit the lane status sign. 4. To provide enhanced guidance for

May St and Appleby St, install the right hand side portion of the lane status sign closer to the intersection.

Accept Drawings amended

RSA-06386




Response

x Status

y Headers*****

RSA-06386




Response

x Status

y Headers*****

8. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0008 The merges along the Princes Hwy appear to be quite short.

Review length / reduced speed signage. Accept Drawing amended

9. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0008 / 0009 The swept path for the left (008) and right (009) turn from May Street into Princes Highway might not work due to the two closed lanes on Princes Highway.

Review. Accept Drawing amended

10. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0009 Eastbound on Princes Highway, the ‘through’ lane on the lane status sign appears to be a through/right lane on the plan.

Review. Accept The intent was to allow only 1 right turn lane and provide a dedicated through lane on the highway.

11. SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0009 It’s unclear why drivers on May Street are exposed to ‘traffic controller’ signs. It would be dangerous for them to be stopped within the Princes Highway intersection by the traffic controller on the opposite side.

Review. Accept Drawing amended

RSA-06386


Explanatory Notes

Short Format: This ‘short format’ report has been used by RSA P/L since 2008, initiated through requests by clients to assist their processes, for ease with stakeholders, and for timeliness. It is typically confined in use to construction traffic management and typically for discrete packages of plans / areas and often for large projects with repetitious small audit sections. The use of this format assumes that the reader/s know what a road safety audit is and how to respond to it. Projects: Audit points are often raised in projects in relation to: 1. specific themes (e.g. the use of a safety barrier type), or 2. the treatment of particular locations. Once key issues have been initially raised, they will not necessarily be re-raised in future audits. This will depend on the issue, the RSA’s perception of the client’s assessment and understanding of the issue, and other factors. Therefore, discrete audits as part of a project should be read and actioned by a project representative who is familiar with the audit history. Responding: Although the client receiving the report does not have to agree to the audit findings/suggestions, the issues and associated risks should be carefully considered. A written response should be made to all of the audit findings raised, then signed off by the responsible person from the project team. X

Response: The responder should fully or partially accept / reject the audit point and the comment / suggestion (i.e. not merely the suggestion) Y

Status: The status of the issue as it sits with the Project. i.e. ‘actioned’, ‘closed’, ‘pending information / further guidance’. Language: 1. Note: RSA P/L does not typically use the Austroads risk rating method, mostly because it can only be applied to some points and therefore can skew the perceived risk of other

points, and also due to it being a highly subjective approach, giving the false impression of objectivity. 2. ‘Urgent’ / ‘High-Risk’: Needs immediate attention / changes as per RSA suggestion or similar. 3. ‘Recommend’ / ‘Serious’ / ‘Important’: Must be robustly reviewed. Most likely requires a change to avoid a high-risk road environment for one or more user groups. 4. ‘Should’ / ‘Suggest’ / ‘Significant’: Based on the view of the RSA team the suggestion should be done, but it concedes that there could be reasons why inaction or alternative

action is equally correct. Must be robustly reviewed by contractor and where relevant key traffic engineering project stakeholders. 5. ‘Review’ / ‘Consider’: RSA is raising an observation but has no strong opinion on the outcome and need for changes. Project should review because it’s not an immediate and

high risk and may not be immediately obvious to RSA the reasons for the practice / setup / behaviour. May need monitoring. 6. ‘Minor’: Typically a low road-safety consequence / compliance issues (to guidelines or plans) / administrative controls. Unlikely to increase risk of crash. 7. ‘Note’: Little or no road safety significance. Typically added to give a complete picture of the design, site, context, analysis, auditors understanding. Intent of Issues Listing Order: Audit points might be clustered according to location, theme, or time. When this is not done and the audit comprises an uncategorised list of points, the key issues are often discussed first. However, there is no official ordering of points, and they should all be read on their merits and on the basis of the language guide below. References: 1. Austroads Guide to Road Safety – Road Safety Audit – 2009, 2. AS 1742.3 – 2009, 3. RMS Traffic Control at Work Sites V. 4.0 (June 2010) Safe System: Austroads guidelines encourage practitioners to adopt safe system principles within design and within road safety audits. Safe system (roads) calls for a design to not allow serious injury and fatalities to occur for the expected road users and the typical crash types expected for that design type. This design-objective is considered within this road safety audit as a ‘good practice’ objective. However, a road safety audit by definition does not have the aim of checking ‘Safe System conformance’. Process and Quality: RSA P/L’s quality assurance process is based on its senior auditors having a rich experience base, but also utilises customised checklists designed for niche areas in traffic engineering/road design (e.g. safety barriers, pavement shaping, CBD traffic management), in conjunction with a four-layer audit process: 1. on-site inspection; 2. media and data capture and review; 3. specialist / second auditor input; and (where warranted) 4. secondary blinded reviews. Audit Coverage: The audit has attempted to balance the safety needs of all road users. As per Austroads guidelines, the suggestions provided have attempted to be realistic/feasible and commensurate with the actual risk posed. Suggestions are made are from a safety perspective only, and are made in the absence of full project knowledge and design constraints. RSA P/L can provide a detailed risk assessment / issue evaluation report upon request. The audit raises potential safety risks noted / observed / anticipated by the audit team, and in particular the higher-risk issues. However, a road safety audit is fundamentally a subjective qualitative process undertaken by people, highly influenced by the experience, views and limitations of the individual team members. It is expected that the project team has competence to identify safety issues itself as the project progresses, and to ask the audit team further questions where necessary.



Appendix 3 Review comments

Document: CTMP ‐ Marrickville Utility Works

Version: B

Date of review: 13/11/2017

Item No

Contract Contractor Doc RevItem Description, Page, Para, Drg

refStakeholder

Requirement Ref (COA or REMM)

TfNSW comment Contractor Response

1 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOFront page Revision number/letter missing from the front

page document approval tableDocument amended

2 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO

2 ‐ Figure 2 Is the highlighting on figure 2 of any significance?

This, in conjunction with the street name

placement, inhibits seeing where the utility works

will take place

These are the wroks for this CTMP as noted in the document.

3 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO2.1.6 Consideration should be paid for cyclists in works

effecting Council St due to the end of a shared

path in this location from the oval

Noted


2.2.1 Should investigations determine trenching is

required in the footpath, details are to be

provided to relevant stakeholders at the

contractors earliest convenience

Noted and agreed

5 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOPlease note that the works listed will be subject

to ROL approvalNoted and agreed

6 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOSuggest providing a reference to Appendix 1 in

the text for a visual of proposed work areas and

impacts

Document amended

7 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO2.2.3 Can you provide some detail on how you will

ensure road plates do not come loose or cause

excess noise if used?

Document amended

8 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO2.2.4 What about bus services on May St, Princes Hwy

and Edinburgh Rd?Document amended

9 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO2.2.5 Where pedestrians are instructed to use the

parking lane, how will you ensure their safety is

maintained?

Document amended

10 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOWhat alternative arrangements have been (or will

be) made for those who are unable to access their

driveways?

Document amended

Stakeholder Comment TrackerSydney Metro City & Southwest

2.2.6

2.2.2

RESPONSE STATUSO OpenC ClosedCS Closed subject to additional action / information


Should trenching need to take place in the

footpath, how will you ensure access is

maintained to properties? What safety measures

will be in play?

Document amended


You should request information from Inner West

Council regarding the apartment construction for

details on timing, footprint etc. and consult with

the proponent.

Document amended

13 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOEnsure you regularly consult with WestConnex as

works progressNoted and agreed

14 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO3.1 & Appendix 2 Please provide and include a copy of the RSA in

the correct section, and refer to Appendix 2 in the

text

Document amended

15 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO3.3 Please include a table of indicative

communications to be used for these worksDocument amended

16 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO3.3.2 Please note that should works impact upon a bus

stop, you will be required to consult with STA as

part of your ROL approval

Noted and agreed

17 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCO3.6 Are there any other contacts that need to be

provided here? If so, please update to include this

information or remove the blank rows

Document amended


Will the removal of parking and no stopping

restrictions (as detailed on page 1 ‐ lines 4 and 5,

and page 2 ‐ lines 3 and 4) only be in place for the

duration listed in section 2.2.2?

Yes


Assume the no stopping restrictions mentioned

for other works are pre‐existing, and hence are

not really an impact of the works?

No ‐ they are to be installed within

the work site to stop people

parking


TCP‐002303‐

0009

Have you looked into the turning paths of vehicles

turning right from May St into Princes Hwy? There

may be potential for large vehicles to overshoot

and enter the work area. Demonstrate how

14.5m long vehicles will be accomodated in each

tcp setup

Drawings amended

21 TSE JHCPBG JV B SCOAppendix 1 ‐ all partial lane closures need to show the

remaining road width on the tcp'sDrawings amended

Register No.2 XXX

Register No.3 XXX

Appendix 1 ‐

Table

2.2.7

Document: CTMP - Marrickville UtilityVersion: BDate of review: 16/11/2017

Item No Contract Contractor Doc Rev Requirement Ref (COA or REMM) Stakeholder Reviewer Date Item Description, Page, Para, Drg ref RMS comment Contractor Response

1 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.2 Timing: November 2017 to March 2018 need to be revised depending final CTMP approval Document amended

2 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.1.5SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0005: John Street is subject to "Road Closure". 1 driveway in service, please clarify whether access will be maintained during works.

as noted in Section 3.2.4 this access cannot be maintained during the works. Consultation will be undertaken with the affected resident prior to the commencement of works

3 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.1 Provide details on pedestrian management strategy for "footpath trenching works" Document amended

4 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.1

"Access to the driveway for Cas Del Desserts will be maintained at all time". In reference to "SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0012": Road closure will be applied in Murray St. Please clarify the timing on when the road closure will happen

the access to Casa Del Desserts is provided for - refer to green arrows for local access

5 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.6 Please provide street parking management plan during works. Document amended

6 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.9All TCPs shall be approved and signed by the designer, lists the design'ers certificate number, has provide an identifying number and dated on the TCP

Drawings amended

7 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 3.1 Road safety audits shall be provided for final CTMP approval Document amended

8 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 Section 3.4

TC@WS stipulated only pesrsonnel who have successfully completed the Seletct/Modify traffic control plans training course can make minor modifcations to TCPs. The location risk assessment from TC@WS appendix D is to be completed at the time of TCP modification.

TSE have their own checklist based on this document

9 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 all TCPs General note: All TCPs shall be approved and signed by the designer, lists the design'ers certificate number, has provide an identifying number and dated on the TCP

Refer to response to Item 6

10 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 all TCPs Specify Taper length for lane closure Drawings amended

11 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 all TCPs Some TCPs have '"Changed Condtions Ahead" sign shall be "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" Drawings amended

12 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 all TCPs All TCPs shall obtain ROLs prior to implementation agree13 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017 SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0005 Missing "End of Roadwork" sign Drawings amended

14 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0007

to SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0009

General note: "#1 Traffic controller is required where ADT<1,500…" Considering Prince Hwy is the State road, all TCPs designed for Princes Hwy related works shall be revised in accordance with TC@WS mannual

Drawings amended

15 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017


Traffic setup in May St / Princes Hwy will not work. Proposed work site blcking E/B May St, and diver traffic onto W/B May St turning to Princes Hwy will no trigger traffic loop. Please check.

Note added to drawing - loop activiation to be done by traffic controller

16 TSE JHCPBG B RMS CC 16-Nov-2017SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0008

Please check parking on the left lane on N/B Princes Hwy. And provide parking management details.

Parking is not allowed north of the median break so no impact on parking at this location



Lane status sign is incorrect. 3r lane is a shared lane, not a through lane

Noted, however, we are trying to encourage people to use this as a through lane otherwise the highway traffic is stopped when May Street right turn movement is stopped



2 lanes closure will have issue with long traffic queue. In this case the third traffic lane is a shared right turn lane, if two vehicles are waiting for the right turn, this will create queue traffic. Please clarify whether this case has been considered in the TCP design

It has hence the lane status sign mentioned in Item 17



Document: CTMP - Marrickville site - UtilitiesVersion: B-00Date of review: 8/11/2017

Item No

Contract Contractor Doc RevRequirement Ref (COA or REMM)

Stakeholder Reviewer DateItem Description, Page, Para, Drg

refTfNSW comment Contractor Response

1 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2 "Duration 4 months". Is it possible to get a likely calendar of works (or similar)?

This document is a CTMP for the approval of access/ egress arrangements and for works that impact traffic. The Traffic Forecast sent out weekly captures works at present within the next 4 weeks but it will be extended where possible. The durations are listed within the document

2 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.1Section currently reads as if all works happen all the time. Suggest clarifying (likely time frames) what works occur when. Appendix 3 states All or Night but nothing further.

Document amended

3 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.1Section states "may involve footpath trenching". So if it does involve footpath trenching, what are the planned management measures? Likely time frames?

Document amended and refer to Sections 3.2.3 and Table 1

4 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.2All works are in different locations. Will these works occur at the same time or is it one after the other? Can the TCPs be referenced in line with each dot point? Section 2.2.9 is for TCPs can there be just one section to avoid repetition?

Document amended

5 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.5Can the TCPs be referenced in line with each dot point? Section 2.2.9 is for TCPs can there be just one section to avoid repetition?

No

6 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.6It is noted accesses will be retained, but what is the affect on the operation of the accesses? Will they be blocked at any time? Closed for short periods?

as described in the document

7 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.6How will parked vehicles be removed if they ignore attempts to make space, especially on Lord St?

works will not proceed until parking is removed

8 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 2.2.9 This section is for TCPs can there be just one section to avoid repetition with 2.2.2 and 2.2.5? This section details approvals required

9 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.2 "…regular updates" How will this be achieved?through the traffic forecast and meetings/ discussions

10 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.3Information in this section is general. What notification/s will actually be done for establishing site and the associated short term works?

Document amended

11 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.3.1 Provide detail on VMS messages, timeframes and locations Document amended

12 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.3.2 (Table) TfNSW received the CTMP on 30 October 2017Documen 3.3.2 (Tablet amen 3.3.2 (Tableded

13 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.4How will JHCPBG JV capture changes to the short term works, on the night? How will it "... provide records of the traffic control implemented." ?

Document amended

14 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.5 This section does not give any detail on how environmental maintenance will be undertaken. Document amended

15 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Section 3.6Will these engineers be on site? If not who is the on-site contact? Are these contacts night or day contacts?

Document amended

16 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Notes on TCP generally reference AS1742.3 and TCAWs but sometimes these documents conflict. In these TCPs sign spacings are from AS1742.3, while sign face is from TC@WS, i.e. AS1742.3 does not use night signs. Keep these difference s in mind when designing TCPs

Checklists

17 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 TCPs are not signed (5.1.2 of TC@Ws Manual). Drawings amended

18 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017TCPs should not be drawn on aerials photographs, see TC@AWS Appendix D. The aerial does lack clarity when trying to establish lanes closed

There is no requirement for this within TCAWS manual

19 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017What is the worksite protection method/device? Referencing AS1742.3 Section 4.2 and TC@Ws Section 3.6

Reduced speed limit, bollards, traffic controllers as noted on the drawings

20 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017TCPs state traffic controllers on stop/slow will also manage pedestrians. Suggest reviewing this and adjusting as required

Drawings amended

21 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 END 40 signs are placed with ENDWORK signs. Review. Drawings amended

22 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017All TCPs reference an ADT of <1500, this will not apply on roads like Princes Hwy and this note should be reviewed on all TCPs.

Drawings amended

23 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017CHANGED CONDITIONS AHEAD sign is used in several TCPs. Is this meant to be a T1-23, CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS?

Drawings amended

24 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Many instances where END ROADWORK signs are not shown Drawings amended

25 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017In several TCPs a non-standard lane status sign is used on several approaches. Will this sign be manufactured for the work? If not, what sign will be used?

The sign shown on the TCP will be used

26 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Where traffic controllers are in use there is no worker protection, e.g. cover vehicle and for night work there is no mention of lighting

Note added to drawings

27 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 No mention of the Westconnex footpath closures. Will this affect sign placements?No - footpaths closed are on Bedwin and Unwins Bridge roads

28 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017What happens when the left turn into Edinburgh Rd, from Bedwin WB, is stopped? Queues may form onto and along Bedwin Rd. How will this be managed?

Drawings amended

29 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Stop/slow related signage installed. Why are there no traffic controllers? Is stop/slow occurring? Drawings amended30 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Left turn out of Edinburgh appears narrow. Can vehicles make the turn as it appears tight? Drawings amended

31 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Cones have been installed WB on Bedwin Rd, why? How will they be maintained if knocked over? Drawings amended

32 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 It appears one traffic controller is watching three directions with no protection. Is this correct? Drawings amended33 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 No taper lengths shown, and only one T5-5 in the taper. Drawings amended

34 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Why does sign placement on Edinburgh Rd start so far back from Bedwin Rd?To provide warning of the implemented traffic control



Sydney Metro City & Southwest

All TCPs

Stakeholder Comment Tracker



35 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Traffic controllers are in use but no signage is installed in advance of their position. Drawings amended

36 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Is the NO STOPPING existing? Council approval required for a NO STOPPING, has this been obtained? How will parked vehicle be removed if they ignore attempts to make space?

Not exisitng No Stopping. CTMP has been provided to Inner West Council a few times now. If vehicles are parked works will not be able to proceed.

37 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017How long is the work site? Is this a long term set-up? If, so will cones be enough to protect the worksite? How will they be maintained outside work hours?

Drawing amended. Backfilling will occur prior to opening area to traffic at the end of each shift



39 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Is this a long term set-up? If, so will cones be enough to protect the worksite? How will they be maintained outside work hours?


40 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 END ROADWORK signs are missing Drawings amended41 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 40 speed zone in place, long term? Where are the signs to show speed going back to 50? Drawings amended

42 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Notes mention the barrier type and they do not appear to rigid enough to keep pedestrians/onlookers from the bore site. How will the work site be protected?

Drawings amended





45 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 TCP ID (SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0006) missing from TCP Drawing amended46 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Signs spacings missing on Council St. Drawing amended

47 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-201740 speed zone in place, long term? Where are the signs to show speed going back to 50? Consider a midway 40ROADWORK sign

Drawing amended

48 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 How is access maintained to Mays Ln. Several garages along here. Drawing amended

49 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Is there any Westconnex work occurring in the area? If so, this needs to be addressed in the TCPNo it will be addressed through the ROL process

50 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Appears stop/slow may occur at the traffic signals? If so, should they be on flashing yellow? Drawing amended51 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Taper lengths are not shown Drawing amended

52 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Vehicle will be turning right from the SB through lane on Princes Hwy. Is this correct? Will this create delays

Drawing amended

53 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Appears stop/slow may occur at the traffic signals? If so, should they be on flashing yellow? Drawing amended54 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Taper lengths are not shown Drawing amended55 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 How is access maintained to Mays Ln. Several garages along here. Drawing amended

56 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017Will SB traffic on Princes Hwy be heading south and turn in right from one lane? Will this create delays?

Yes that is why it is being undertaken at night

57 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Taper lengths are not shown Drawing amended58 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 TCP ID (SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0010) missing from TCP Drawing amended


Drawing amended



61 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 TCP ID (SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0011) missing from TCP Drawing amended


Drawing shows End 40 signs

63 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Can detail be added on the resident access measure that will be in place at Caroline Ln? Drawing amended

64 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017What is the lane width available to traffic when part road is closed? Especially as this road is where rubbish bins are stored, by residents, for collection

Drawing amended



66 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Road Safety Audit to be included Document amended67 TSE JHCPBG JV B-00 IG BG 08-Nov-2017 Review comments to be included Are now

MCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0011








Document: CTMP - Marrickville UtilityVersion: CDate of review: 19/12/2017

Item No Contract Contractor Doc Rev Requirement Ref (COA or REMM) Stakeholder Reviewer Date Item Description, Page, Para, Drg ref RMS comment Contractor Response

1 TSE JHCPBG C RMS CM 19-Dec-2017 SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0007

ORIGINAL COMMENT:Traffic setup in May St / Princes Hwy will not work. Proposed work site blcking E/B May St, and diver traffic onto W/B May St turning to Princes Hwy will no trigger traffic loop. Please check.

CONTRACTORS RESPONE:Note added to drawing - loop activation to be done by traffic controller

UPDATED COMMENT:No note was found on TCP relating to loop activation by traffic controllers

Drawing amended


ORIGINAL COMMENT:Please check parking on the left lane on N/B Princes Hwy. And provide parking management details.

CONTRACTOR RESPONSE:Parking is not allowed north of the median break so no impact on parking at this location.

UPDATED COMMENT:Google street view images show parking is available on the northbound kerbside lane of Princes Highway north of May Street outside of the AM and PM peak hours.

Drawing amended

3 TSE JHCPBG C RMS CM 19-Dec-2017 SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0008 Traffic travelling southbound from Princes Highway turning right into May Street will not be able to trigger traffic loop. Drawing amended


NEW ISSUE IN THIS REVISION:Lane Arrows (symbolic) showing the wrong lanes being closed on the signs compared to what is shown on the road. Drawing amended

5 TSE JHCPBG C RMS CM 19-Dec-2017 SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-TCP-002303-0010NEW ISSUE IN THIS REVISION:Roadwork signage shows Traffic Controller (symbolic) however, there are no traffic controllers shown on the TCP.

Drawing amended

Register No. Issued to: Date of IssueRegister No.1 XXXRegister No.2 XXXRegister No.3 XXX



Documents

SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303-C Marrickville Utility Works · 2019. 3. 13. · Construction Traffic Management Plan – Marrickville Utility works SMCSWTSE-JCG-DSY-CN-PLN-002303Construction