A Brief Overview of the Road Safety Approach in Singapore October, 2019 © 2019 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2019. A Brief Overview on the Road Safety Approach in Singapore. © World Bank.” All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 4 List of Photos.............................................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 9 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.1. The Safe System Approach ........................................................................................ 12 1.2. Evidence-based measures ......................................................................................... 14 1.3. Road safety in the ASEAN context ............................................................................ 15 1.4. Overview of road safety status in Singapore ............................................................ 16 2. Road Safety Management ............................................................................................... 18 2.1. Road traffic collision classification in Singapore ....................................................... 18 2.2. Vehicle safety ............................................................................................................ 19 2.3. Awareness and education ......................................................................................... 20 2.4. Red-light camera system ........................................................................................... 24 2.5. Road infrastructure ................................................................................................... 26 2.5.1. Road safety audits.............................................................................................. 26 2.5.2. LTA road maintenance program ........................................................................ 30 3. Speed Management ......................................................................................................... 31 3.1. Setting speed limits ................................................................................................... 31 3.2. Enforcement of speed limits ..................................................................................... 32 3.3. Speed cameras .......................................................................................................... 35 3.4. Traffic-calming measures .......................................................................................... 38 4. Road Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 42 4.1. Road parameters ....................................................................................................... 42 4.2. Safer roadsides for forgiving roads ........................................................................... 44 4.2.1. Vehicle impact guardrail .................................................................................... 44 4.2.2. Rumble strips ..................................................................................................... 45 2 4.2.3. Raised profile marking ....................................................................................... 45 4.2.4. Crash cushions ................................................................................................... 46 4.3. Self-explaining roads ................................................................................................. 47 4.4. Pedestrian footbridges .............................................................................................. 47 5. Dangerous Infrastructure................................................................................................. 49 5.1. Identifying dangerous existing streets ...................................................................... 49 5.2. Dangerous road designs ............................................................................................ 51 5.3. Dangerous Pedestrian and Cyclist Infrastructure ..................................................... 52 6. Safer Design Principles: Before-and-After Study on Sustainable Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 56 7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 58 References ............................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A – Pedestrian Infrastructure Design Guidance ...................................................... 62 Appendix B – Guardrail Design Guidance ................................................................................ 63 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1. BIGRS (2015–19) Cities and Countries ................................................................... 11 Figure 1.2. Conceptualization of the Safe System Approach................................................... 13 Figure 1.3. Estimated Fatalities per 100,000 Population, ASEAN ............................................ 15 Figure 1.4. Fatalities per 100,000 Population, Singapore........................................................ 16 Figure 1.5. Collisions per 10,000 Vehicles, Singapore ............................................................. 17 Figure 2.1. Singapore Road Safety Campaign Poster in Public Transport Vehicles ................. 21 Figure 2.2. Singapore Road Safety Poster for Cyclists’ Safety ................................................. 22 Figure 2.3 Road Safety Poster for speeding............................................................................. 23 Figure 2.4. Red-Light Camera Locations, Singapore ................................................................ 24 Figure 3.1. Speed Camera Locations, Singapore...................................................................... 35 Figure 3.2. Speeding Violations 2010–18, Singapore .............................................................. 38 Figure 4.1. Sight Stopping Distance ......................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.2. Raised Profile Marking ........................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.3. Raised Profile Marking, Side Profile View .............................................................. 46 List of Photos Photo 2.1. Red-Light Camera, Singapore ................................................................................. 25 Photo 2.2. PCSR Hazard, Singapore ......................................................................................... 30 Photo 3.1. Two-Stage Crossing ................................................................................................ 33 Photo 3.2. Silver Zone Sign and Rumble Strips, Bukit Merah View ......................................... 34 Photo 3.3. Chicanes, Bukit Merah View................................................................................... 34 Photo 3.4. Fixed Speed Camera, Singapore ............................................................................. 36 Photo 3.5. Mobile Speed Camera, Singapore .......................................................................... 36 Photo 3.6. Police Speed Laser Camera .................................................................................... 37 Photo 3.7. Average-Speed Camera, Singapore ........................................................................ 37 Photo 3.8. Centre Refuge Island, Singapore ............................................................................ 39 Photo 3.9. Centre Divider, Singapore ...................................................................................... 40 Photo 3.10. Chevron Markings, Singapore .............................................................................. 40 Photo 3.11. Road Hump, Singapore......................................................................................... 41 Photo 3.12. Hatching Marking, Oldham Lane, Singapore........................................................ 41 Photo 4.1. Crash Cushion, Singapore ....................................................................................... 46 Photo 4.2. Examples of Self-Explaining Roads in Singapore .................................................... 47 Photo 4.3. Examples of Frequently Used Footbridges in Singapore ....................................... 48 Photo 5.1. Fully Controlled Right Turn (red-amber-green arrows) ......................................... 50 Photo 5.2. Signal box located unsafely on the edge of the carriageway, Singapore .............. 51 4 Photo 5.3. Inadequate Visibility Along Vertical Curve, Singapore ........................................... 52 Photo 5.4. Unremoved Crossing, Singapore ............................................................................ 53 Photo 5.5. Inadequate Crossing, Singapore............................................................................. 54 Photo 5.6. Hazardous Footpath, Singapore ............................................................................. 54 Photo 5.7. Inadequate Crossing ............................................................................................... 55 Photo 6.1. Previous Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore ................................ 56 Photo 6.2. New Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore .................................. 57 Photo 6.3. Improved Pedestrian Facilities, Bencoolen Street, Singapore ............................... 57 List of Tables Table 2.1. Vehicle Safety Items (LTA 2017a)............................................................................ 20 Table 2.2. PSR Stages ............................................................................................................... 27 Table 2.3. Collision Frequency and Severity ............................................................................ 28 Table 2.4. Definition of Risk Category...................................................................................... 28 Table 2.5. Guide on Accident Frequency Index ....................................................................... 28 Table 2.6. Guide on Accident Severity Index ........................................................................... 29 Table 2.7. Definition of Practicability Category ....................................................................... 29 Table 3.1. Singapore Speed Limits (kilometers per hour) ....................................................... 32 Table 4.1. Main Principles for Forgiving Roads........................................................................ 44 5 Acknowledgments This work was undertaken by the World Bank road safety focal point for the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS) in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Alina F. Burlacu (Transport Specialist), together with Emily Tan (Consultant). The entire work was funded by the Bloomberg Philanthropies under the BIGRS. The report benefited from extremely useful advice from the Global Road Safety Facility specialists: Soames Job (Global Lead Road Safety), Dipan Bose (Senior Transport Specialist and Task Team Leader for BIGRS), Juan Miguel Velasquez (Transport Specialist, BIGRS focal point for Latin America and the Caribbean region), and Sudeshna Mitra (Transport Specialist), as well as international road safety expert Daniel Mustata (Australia). 6 Executive Summary This report introduces how the Safe System Approach works, with a focus on road infrastructure and road safety engineering best practices from one of the best performing countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Singapore. Singapore roads are not only considered the safest in the region, they rank among the safest globally. Road safety management rules and regulations implemented in the country have resulted in significant strides in managing the effects of collision factors related to roadway design, human behavior, and vehicle attributes. As a result, road safety statistics have shown that fatalities on the Singapore road network have been steadily declining over the past decade. This is leading to a desire on the part of neighboring countries to follow Singapore’s example and learn from its experience. In order to mitigate collisions attributed to vehicle inadequacies or defects, one of the measures taken in Singapore was to enforce a strict vehicle import policy. Vehicle imports are permissible from countries that have adopted and comply with recognized high vehicle safety standards. Vehicle safety compliance is particularly focused on 52 items specified by the Land Transport Authority (LTA). In addition to strict vehicle import standards, Singapore enforces a strict vehicle quota system, which regulates the number of vehicles on the road network. Additionally, vehicles are required to undergo frequent inspections. Cars between 3 and 10 years old are required to have a biennial inspection, and cars older than 10 years are required to undergo annual inspections. Furthermore, taxis are required to undergo inspections every six months. Road safety education and driver education are core tenants of Singapore’s roads safety strategy. Road safety education is predominately undertaken by the Singapore Traffic Police, but nongovernmental organizations such as the National Security Coordination Secretariat contribute significantly to road safety education in Singapore. Ensuring that roads are safe and adequate for road users is vital, and Singapore implements a range of road safety management measures to ensure this is the case. Road safety audits, also known as Project Safety Reviews (PSR), have been implemented in Singapore since 1998. LTA guidelines specify that PSRs are required to be undertaken at the planning, design, construction, and completion stage of a project. PSRs are essential components of Singapore’s road safety strategy. Another key road safety measure used in Singapore is speed cameras. A network of 87 speed cameras is strategically positioned along the road network. Singapore uses four different types of speed cameras: fixed speed camera, police speed laser camera, mobile speed camera, and average speed camera. Data obtained from the Singapore Traffic Police show 7 that the number of speeding violations is in decline. The data have shown that the introduction of 20 speed cameras at 11 locations in 2014 has resulted in a steep decline in the number of violations. Further investigation would be required to know whether this decline is attributed solely to the speed cameras or to various contributing factors. Speed management is essential, particularly in areas where vehicles and vulnerable road users come into contact. Traffic-calming measures can be a low cost and effective way of managing speeds in areas with a presence of vulnerable road users and can include physical measures such as road dividers or visual measures such as road markings. Certain areas in Singapore have been designated as “special zones”: Silver Zones and School Zones. Speed management techniques have been implemented in these areas because of the presence of vulnerable pedestrians such as elderly people and school children. Speed management and traffic-calming measures in School Zones and Silver Zones include lower speeds (40 kilometers per hour in school zones and 40 kilometers per hour when possible in silver zones), appropriate signage, assisted crossings and road safety features such as rumble strips. At the same time, in order to prevent collisions at junctions due to vehicles running red lights, Singapore implements a red-light camera (RLC) system. Research has shown RLCs can be an effective way of preventing or reducing the impact of collisions. Singapore has a total of 240 RLCs across its road network. As previously stated, Singapore roads are among the safest globally, but there is still room for improvement, particularly when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrians and cyclists account for approximately 16 percent of all road deaths in Southeast Asia. The number of collisions involving pedestrians in Singapore in 2018 was 1,036, and 25 percent were elderly pedestrians (who actually account for 62.5 percent of pedestrian fatalities). Although the pedestrian infrastructure in Singapore is considered good, there are plenty of examples of subpar pedestrian infrastructure across the country that could benefit from improvements. Additionally, there have been recent strides by local authorities in Singapore to improve sustainability and accessibility by promoting sustainable modes of transport. Several improvement schemes have been implemented, and many more are planned to improve pedestrian and cyclist accessibility. 8 Abbreviations BIGRS Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety COE Certificate of Entitlement GRSF Global Road Safety Facility LTA Land Transport Authority PSR Project Safety Review RLC red-light camera SRSC Singapore Road Safety Council TP Singapore Traffic Police WHO World Health Organization VIG vehicle impact guardrail 9 1. Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that road injuries accounted for approximately 1.35 million deaths in 2016, ranking it 8th in the top 10 global causes of death (WHO 2018a). This global epidemic is not only fatal but comes with great economic consequences. Road collisions are estimated to cost around US$518 billion, costing countries 1–2 percent of their annual GDP. If no intervention is taken, road traffic injuries are expected to become the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2030. The World Bank gives road safety a critical consideration in its transport investment projects. Through its Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF), a partnership under the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ leadership was formed with another nine international institutions, creating the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS). A World Bank (2017) study on the economic impact of road traffic injuries, undertaken under BIGRS, shows that over time, sharply reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths would enable the study’s five selected countries to attain substantial increases in economic growth and national income, leading simultaneously to clear welfare gains. Reducing road traffic mortality and morbidity by 50 percent and sustaining it over a period of 24 years could, for example, generate an additional flow of income equivalent to 22.2 percent of 2014 GDP in Thailand and a 7.2 percent increase in the Philippines. This puts into perspective the magnitude of economic benefits that the countries may realize with sustained action if they were to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal targets on road safety. The Bloomberg Philanthropies’ BIGRS (2015–19) is the second phase of a $125 million partnership program focused on reduction of road deaths and serious injuries in 10 selected cities and 5 countries in the developing world (figure 1.1). The following cities were selected through a competitive process: Accra, Addis Ababa, Bandung, Bangkok, Bogota, Fortaleza, Ho Chi Minh City, Mumbai, Sao Paulo, and Shanghai. Under the program, cities have been receiving funding support for full-time staff embedded in city agencies, comprehensive technical assistance from the collaborating organizations, training and capacity building for enforcement agency, and media and social awareness campaigns. In addition, five countries were selected (China, India, Philippines, Tanzania, and Thailand) to receive support for national-level activities including legislative and policy implementation activities. Bloomberg has also requested the World Bank to carry out financial costing studies and assessment of high-risk roads in the five selected countries. Figure 1.1 shows the locations of the BIGRS activities: 10 Figure 1.1. BIGRS (2015–19) Cities and Countries Under BIGRS, the objective for the World Bank engagement is to: • build road safety management capacity; • improve road infrastructure safety; and • leverage related road safety investment in countries where significant impact on lives saved can be achieved. Working together with other BIGRS Safer Streets and Safer Mobility partners, EMBARQ - the World Resources Institute, Ross Centre for Sustainable Cities, and the National Association of City Transportation Official's Global Designing Cities Initiative, the World Bank complements efforts in improving road infrastructure and mobility safety for the selected cities. This report introduces how the Safe System Approach works, with a focus on road infrastructure and road safety engineering best practices from one of best performing countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Singapore. 11 1.1. The Safe System Approach The Safe System Approach advocates for a safe road system, better adapted to the physical tolerance of its users (Well et al. 2018; ITF 2016). The core principles of this approach are in line with well-known mid-1990s national strategies such as Sweden’s Vision Zero and the Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety approach (PIARC 2015). It was officially endorsed by the Australian Transport Council in 2004 and adopted by all Australian state and territory road authorities. The history of how the Safe System Approach was adopted and some of the rationale behind it is presented by Grzebieta, Mooren, and Job (2013). The main highlight of the Safe System Approach is that while it recognizes the need for responsible road user behavior, it also accepts that human error is inevitable. It therefore aims to create a road transport system that makes allowance for errors and minimizes the consequences—in particular, the risk of death or serious injury. Obviously, the Safe System Approach does not absolve road users from complying with road laws. On the contrary, the Safe System Approach works at its optimum when road users comply with road laws. In other words, the Safe System Approach should be considered as a holistic graded safety system. For fully compliant road users, the Safe System Approach should guarantee maximum protection against death and serious injury. Road users should not expect to die or be seriously injured if, through no fault of their own, they find themselves involved in a crash or collision. However, the system should also assist with reducing the risk of a fatality or serious injury for a noncompliant road user who is involved in a crash. In a nutshell, by taking a total view of the combined factors involved in road safety, the Safe System Approach encourages a better understanding of the interaction between the key elements of the road system: road users, roads and roadsides, vehicles and travel speeds (see Figure 1.2). It has three core components: 1. Safe roads and roadsides: a transport system designed to make a collision survivable through a combination of design and maintenance of roads and roadsides 2. Safe vehicles: the design of vehicles and their safety equipment to include protective systems including electronic stability control, air cushions, and so forth 3. Safe speeds: a speed limit reflecting the road safety risk to the road users and sending them the right messages 12 Figure 1.2. Conceptualization of the Safe System Approach Source: ITF 2016. It is essential that vehicles travel at speeds that suit the function and the level of safety of the road to ensure that crash forces are kept below the limits that cause death or serious injury. This requires the setting of appropriate speed limits supplemented by effective enforcement and education, together with self-explaining infrastructure that would send all road users the right signals on how to use the road. 13 1.2. Evidence-based measures Evidence-based measures involve looking at a crash, casualty, and any other available data to be sure what road safety issue needs to be addressed. It further involves research and evaluation reports to check whether the type of intervention being considered is likely to be effective. Evidence-based practice originated in medicine, but it has been translated to several policy areas, including road safety. Evidence-based practice can help to ensure that both new and existing interventions are successful, as they have been proven to work in a similar context, and also maximize efficiency in times of budget cuts. The main evidence-based interventions in road safety can be divided into four main groups: 1. Safer road users: informing and educating users about safe use of the road, and taking action against those who do not comply with the rules 2. Safer roads: designing, constructing, and maintaining roads and roadsides to reduce the risk of crashes and minimize the severity of injury if a crash occurs 3. Safer vehicles: designing and maintaining vehicles to minimize the risk of crashes and the severity of injury to motor vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and cyclists if a crash occurs 4. Safer speeds: setting speed limits taking into account the level of risk on the road network and the benefits of lower speeds in minimizing the incidence and severity of injury in the event of a crash, together with the corresponding self-explaining infrastructure and enforcement According to Wegman et al. (2017), three subjects are key in this new approach of evidence- based and data-driven road safety management: ex post and ex ante evaluation of both individual interventions and intervention packages in road safety strategies, and transferability (external validity) of the research results. 14 1.3. Road safety in the ASEAN context It is estimated that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists account for approximately 50 to 75 percent of all road traffic fatalities in Asia and the Pacific. According to WHO (2018b), the Southeast Asia region accounts for the second highest road fatality rate globally, surpassed only by Africa. In 2016 there were approximately 20.7 road traffic fatalities per 100,000 people in the Southeast Asia region. WHO also estimates the number of road traffic fatalities globally in 2016 at 18.2 per 100,000 people. The road traffic fatality rate in the Southeast Asia region was approximately 13 percent greater than the overall global road traffic fatality rate in 2016. WHO road traffic fatality data show that several ASEAN nations have particularly high road traffic fatality rates. ASEAN nations such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have road traffic fatality rates of 23.6, 32.7, and 26.4 deaths per 100,000 people respectively (figure 1.3). This is significantly greater than the global road traffic fatality rate. Figure 1.3. Estimated Fatalities per 100,000 Population, ASEAN 2010 2013 2016 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Singapore Indonesia Philippines Lao PDR Cambodia Myanmar Malaysia Vietnam Thailand Source: WHO 2018a. 15 1.4. Overview of road safety status in Singapore Singapore is located in Southeast Asia and consists of islands between Malaysia and Indonesia. It is the focal point for Southeast Asian sea routes. The land area is less than seven hundred square kilometers, with a coastline of 193 kilometers. The island is relatively flat in the lowlands and its highest point is 166 meters. The climate is tropical: hot, humid, and rainy with two distinct monsoon seasons. Singapore is a highly developed and successful free market economy, enjoying a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world. The population of Singapore is over 5 million people, with an average life expectancy of 83.2 years. Singapore is considered one of the best performing countries globally and regionally in terms of road safety. Road safety statistics provided by the Singapore Traffic Police (2019) show that there is a downward trend in the number of road traffic fatalities, presented in figure 1.4. Figure 1.4. Fatalities per 100,000 Population, Singapore Source: Singapore Traffic Police 2019. The total number of fatalities in 2009 was 183. Over a 10-year period (2009–18), Singapore was able to reduce the number of fatalities on its roads by approximately 32 percent, to 124 fatalities in 2018. 16 The overall number of collisions resulting in injury over a 10-year period has experienced decreases and increases (figure 1.5). Figure 1.5. Collisions per 10,000 Vehicles, Singapore Source: Singapore Traffic Police 2019. It can be deduced from the data presented in both Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5 that overall there is a decrease in the number of fatalities and the number of collisions resulting in injury. This can be attributed to several factors, such as lower speeds, increased driver awareness, safer vehicles, safer roads, and better post collision care. 17 2. Road Safety Management The first and fundamental pillar of WHO’s Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety is road safety management (WHO 2011). The World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (Peden 2004) and the Global Plan highlight that a systematic and planned approach is required to improve road safety performance. The most effective way countries and organizations can improve road safety performance is by establishing an effective road safety management system. In Singapore, the responsibility of road management is held by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Singapore Traffic Police (TP). The LTA is responsible for the provision and maintenance of road facilities and vehicle safety, whereas the TP are entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing traffic regulations and providing publicity and education. 2.1. Road traffic collision classification in Singapore A road traffic collision is an incident involving one or more vehicles, occurring on the public highway and resulting in personal injury that is recorded by the police. A road traffic collision is a rare, random, multifactor event always preceded by a situation in which one or more road users have failed to cope with the road environment. In Singapore, road traffic collisions are classified into four categories of severity: (i) fatality, (ii) serious injury, (iii) slight injury, and (iv) property damage. A fatal casualty in a road traffic collision is one in which the victim dies within 30 days of the collision. A seriously injured casualty is one who has suffered injuries such as a fracture, concussion, internal lesions, crushing, severe cuts and laceration, or severe general shock requiring medical treatment or hospitalization, such that the person is unable to perform his ordinary pursuits for at least seven days. A slightly injured casualty is one who is conveyed to the hospital from the scene in an ambulance or otherwise, one who requires subsequent medical treatment entailing hospitalization, and one who takes medical leave of up to three days. Collisions are assigned the severity group according to the most seriously affected casualty in the collision. All reported collisions not involving injuries are classified as property-damage- only collisions. A road traffic collision can be attributed to several factors. These include road factors, human factors, vehicle factors, and environmental factors. 18 2.2. Vehicle safety As previously stated, vehicle factors can also contribute to a collision. The provision of safety features such as airbags and antilock braking systems can decrease the likelihood of a collision or the severity of a collision. Singapore allows the importation of new vehicles directly from the manufacturer or from countries with higher or equivalent safety and exhaust emission standards to Singapore’s. The importation of used cars less than three years old and classic or vintage cars is allowed (LTA 2017a). Imported vehicles are required to comply with the Road Traffic Act and its subsidiary legislations. Vehicles imported from EU countries, Japan, and the United States are deemed acceptable, as the LTA recognizes that these have adopted an internationally recognized high vehicle-safety standard. Stringent regulation of the importation of vehicles prevents the use of unsafe vehicles on the roads of Singapore. At the same time, in order to maintain a steady rate of vehicle growth with the development of transport infrastructure, vehicle quotas are enforced in Singapore. In order to own and operate a vehicle in Singapore, a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) is required. The COE allows the vehicle owner the right to own a vehicle for a period of 10 years. The vehicle quota is determined by several conditions: • The total number of deregistered vehicles • The allowable growth in vehicle growth, that is, capacity for new vehicles • Adjustments to account for changes in taxi population, replacements under the Early Turnover Scheme, past over projections, and expired or cancelled temporary COEs The quota for the number of COE’s available is updated every three months (LTA, 2019). In addition, according to the Singapore Land Transport Master Plan 2040, 67 percent of all peak-period journeys are now undertaken on public transport, compared to 63 percent in 2012. This has a considerable impact on road safety, since public transport is considered the safest means of transportation on the road. Table 2.1. outlines 52 items that are required for a vehicle to comply with in terms of vehicle safety standards. 19 Table 2.1. Vehicle Safety Items (LTA 2017a) Item Item 1 Anti-theft and immobilizer 27 Lateral protection 2 Audible warning 28 Masses and dimensions 3 Braking 29 Parking lamps 4 Couplings 30 Prevention of fire risks 5 Defrost/demist 31 Protective steering 6 Diesel Smoke 32 Rear registration plate lamps 7 Direction indicators 33 Rear registration plate space 8 Door latches and hinges 34 Rear visibility 9 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) 35 Registration plates 10 Emissions 36 Retro reflectors 11 End-outline, front position (side), rear- 37 Reversing lamps position (side), stop, side marker, daylight running lamps 12 Engine power Safety glass 38 13 Exterior projections Seat belt anchorages 39 14 Fog lamps (front) Seat belts 40 15 Fog lamps (rear) Seat strength 41 16 Forward vision Side impact (side beams) 42 17 Front underrun protection Sound level 18 Frontal impact 43 18 Frontal Impact Speed limiters 44 19 Fuel consumption Speedometer and reverse gear 45 20 Fuel tanks/rear protection device Steering effort 46 21 Head restraints Towing hooks 47 22 Headlamps (including bulbs) Tires 48 23 Heating systems Vehicle and component marking 49 (including vehicle identification number, or VIN) 24 Identification of control 50 Vehicle using CNG/electric/hybrid etc. 25 Installation of lightings and light 51 Wash/wipe signaling devices 26 Interior fitting 52 Wheel guards 2.3. Awareness and education A key aspect of road safety is the education of all road users, including drivers and pedestrians. Driver education and road safety awareness predominantly falls under the TP’s responsibility. 20 The TP frequently organize road safety campaigns extended to all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. There are three driver training centers in Singapore: • Bukit Batok Driving Centre Ltd • ComfortDelGro Driving Centre Pte Ltd • Singapore Safety Driving Centre Ltd The driving centers are responsible for the training of new drivers as well as conducting retraining courses for the suspended drivers. The driving centers are also responsible for testing drivers in collaboration with the TP. The driving instructors at the driving centers are of a high standard and are closely monitored by the TP. The centers make use of structured theory and practical course as well as driving and riding simulators in their teaching program. The Road Safety Division of the TP holds the responsibility of delivering road safety education to the public. They work hand in hand with various community groups to promote road safety for all road users. The TP reach the population using the following communication avenues: • Television commercials • Radio commercials • Newspaper advertisements • Cinema advertisements • Bus and taxi advertisements • Publicity materials such as leaflets, banners, posters, and stickers (figure 2.1) • Internet and information communication technology Figure 2.1. Singapore Road Safety Campaign Poster in Public Transport Vehicles 21 Figure 2.2. Singapore Road Safety Poster for Cyclists’ Safety A typical road safety awareness poster provided by the TP is presented in Figure 2.2. The poster targets cyclists to inform them on how to correctly and safely use the road infrastructure available. 22 Figure 2.3 Road Safety Poster for speeding Road safety campaigns also seek to highlight to drivers of the dangers of speeding. The poster presented in Figure 2.3 informs drivers that speeding and “beating the red light” are among the top killers. Several other nongovernmental organizations play a role in delivering road safety education to the public. These include the Singapore Road Safety Council (SRSC) and the Automobile Association of Singapore. The SRSC was established in 2009 to focus on road safety issues. It is funded mainly through private donations and small government grants. 23 2.4. Red-light camera system Several studies have been undertaken at signalized junctions with a red-light camera (RLC) system. The studies show that there was a reduction in the number of violations in the order of 30 percent to 50 percent. RLC studies (Retting, Ferguson, and Hakkert 2010) have observed changes in red-light violations at noncamera sites, that is, at similar signalized intersections in the same communities that were not equipped with RLC. Large reductions in violation rates, of an order resembling those at camera sites, were observed at these sites, indicating a spill over or “halo” effect. This shows that in some cases the implementation of RLC can have a positive effect on nearby areas. As of 2019, there are a total of 240 RLCs located across Singapore. Figure 2.4 provides a visual representation. Figure 2.4. Red-Light Camera Locations, Singapore Source: Traffic Police The existing network of RLCs was introduced to the Singapore road network in 1986. Since their installation, the number of vehicles on the road has increased significantly, from under half a million vehicles in 1987 to over 900,000 vehicles in 2018. Furthermore, the number of 24 driving license holders has increased considerably, from 735,480 holders in 1987 to over two million in 2018. The number of red-light violation cases recorded in 2018 was 53,910, representing a 15.7 percent increase from 46,599 cases in 2017. The number of collisions from running a red light increased slightly, by 2.6 percent, to 120 collisions in 2018 from 117 collisions in 2017. Although an increase in the number of violations has been recorded between 2018 and 2019, over a long-term period there is a decline. Photo 2.1 shows the standard type of RLC used in Singapore. Photo 2.1. Red-Light Camera, Singapore 25 2.5. Road infrastructure 2.5.1. Road safety audits Safer roads are one of the core components of the Safe System Approach, as well-designed road infrastructure can reduce the likelihood and the severity of a collision. The LTA in Singapore is responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and regulation of roads in Singapore. Roads are designed in accordance with design standards set out by LTA. This entails several design specifications documents including the “Code of Practice—Street Work Proposals Relating to Development Works.” The Code of Practice outlines the essential submission procedures and technical requirements pertaining to the design and construction of street work (LTA 2019b). The Austroads guidelines define a road safety audit as a “formal examination of a future road or traffic project, an existing road, or any project which interacts with road users, in which an independent, qualified team assesses the crash potential and safety performance.” (Austroads 2019). The aims of a road safety audit are (i) to ensure roads operate as safely as practical, (ii) to minimize the number of collisions and severity, (iii) to consider the safety of all road users, and (iv) to improve the awareness of safety design practices by design, construction, and maintenance staff. Road safety audits can lead to safe roads by removing or treating safety hazards and promoting the incorporation of safety or collision-reduction features; they can reduce the risk, severity, and likelihood of a crash to occur. In addition, road safety audits can reduce costly remedial works. Road safety audits comprise two complementary approaches: collision reduction and collision prevention. A road safety audit is required for developing remedial measures for sites where collisions are frequent and also for modifying existing roads or designing safer ones to prevent crashes (Austroads 2019). Road safety audits were introduced to Singapore in 1998 by the LTA as a requirement for new road projects as well as for temporary traffic schemes. The LTA offers road and transport professionals the opportunity to become a certified road safety reviewer by attending a four- day training course. Road safety audits are also known as a Project Safety Reviews (PSRs) in Singapore. The PSR is not a design check, it is a review of the safety and adequacy of the design. The PSR is an independent review and assessment of the project team’s assertion that the proposed road system is safe to use (LTA 2019c). The PSR process in Singapore consists of four stages through which an audit of a road scheme must pass: 26 1. Planning: preliminary design safety submission 2. Design: detailed design safety submission 3. Construction: temporary traffic control safety submission 4. Completion: postconstruction safety submission An independent safety review report is required for each of the stages, highlighting safety deficiencies and proposing remedial countermeasures. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the PSR process and responsibilities held by various stakeholders. Table 2.2. PSR Stages Stage Role Responsibility Preparation of Contractor/traffic consultant Prepare design details and design details project Brief LTA project team In-principle approval of design details Conduct of safety Independent safety review Prepare draft safety review review team report LTA project team contractor/ Review and accept draft safety traffic consultant review report Independent safety review Prepare final safety review team report Preparation of Contractor/traffic consultant Prepare response to response recommendations in safety review report LTA project team Approve safety submission Audit LTA Safety Division Audit safety submission Endorsement PSR Committee (roads) Endorse safety submission Implementation Contractor/traffic consultant Implement design details on site Safety hazards are identified and categorized using the risk assessment matrix provided within the Project Safety Review Procedure Manual for Road Projects. The frequency and severity of collisions are classified from Incredible to Frequent and Negligible to High (presented in Table 2.3). The frequency and severity of collisions are assigned to four categories which define the level of acceptability of the risk. Table 2.4 shows the different risk categories defined by LTA. 27 Table 2.3. Collision Frequency and Severity Risk category Accident severity index Negligible Low Medium High (NEG) (LOW) (MED) (HIG) Frequent (FRE) B A A A Accident frequency Occasional (OCC) C B A A Remote (REM) D C B A Improbable (IMP) D D C B index Incredible (INC) D D D C Table 2.4. Definition of Risk Category Risk category Definition A Intolerable Risk shall be reduced by whatever means possible. B Undesirable Risk shall be accepted by the LTA if further risk reduction is not practical. C Tolerable Risk shall be accepted by LTA subject to endorsement by the PSR (Roads) Committee. D Acceptable Risk shall be accepted by LTA. The frequency and likelihood of a collision to occur is classified into five categories. These are presented in Table 2.5. Table 2.5. Guide on Accident Frequency Index Frequency index Definition Frequency guide Frequent (FRE) Likely to occur often 10 times per year or more Occasional (OCC) Less than 10 times per year but more Likely to occur several times than once per year Remote (REM) Likely to occur sometime Less than once per year but more during the system’s than once every 10 years operational life Improbable (IMP) Unlikely to occur but Less than once every 10 years but possible more than once every 100 year Incredible (INC) Unlikely to occur Once every 100 years or less The severity of injuries resulting from a collision can are classified into four categories, these are presented in Table 2.6. 28 Table 2.6. Guide on Accident Severity Index Severity index Definition Guide High (HIG) Multiple fatalities and/or High-on collision severe injuries Right-angle collision High speed collision Medium (MED) Single fatality or severe Pedestrian or cyclists struck by car injury, with possible other Side swipe collision minor injuries Medium speed collision Low (LOW) Minor injuries or property Low speed collision damage only Pedestrian or cyclist fall Negligible (NEG) Property damage only Car reverse into post Recommendations provided to remove or reduce a hazard are defined as either “practical” or “not practical.” Table 2.7 provides a definition for each category. Table 2.7. Definition of Practicability Category Practicality Definition category P Likely typical cost of implementing the recommendation is commensurate with the level of risk reduction which it achieves. NP Likely typical cost of implementing the recommendation is not commensurate with the level of risk reduction which it achieves. The safety review report is required to identify and present hazards in the following format as specified by the LTA: • Hazard location: Specify the design reference and exact location of the Hazards. • Hazard description: Describe the nature of the safety concern. • Collision description/potential risk: Describe the type of collision or conflict. • Initial risk category: Indicate the risk assessment of the potential risk. • Recommendation: o Describe the measures to be undertaken to mitigate the risk associated with the hazard. o The risk is to be reduced to an acceptable level. • Practicability category: o Indication that the recommendation is practical o Site constrains taken into consideration 29 As presented in Table 2.3, hazards vary in the level of severity. Photo 2.2 presents an example of a hazard identified during a Postconstruction Safety Review (PCSR). Photo 2.2. PCSR Hazard, Singapore Photo 2.2 shows an exposed vehicle impact guardrail (VIG), which poses a high threat to vehicles. VIGs are designed to prevent vehicles from running off the roadway, but they can pose as a hazard when the termination is not properly anchored or ramped down into the ground. 2.5.2. LTA road maintenance program Road maintenance is vital for the preservation of a road’s safety and quality. The frequent maintenance of a road can lead to a reduction in the probability a collision will occur due to hazards located on the road. Furthermore, regular maintenance ensures that the level of safety is adequate for all road users. In Singapore, the LTA operates a comprehensive road maintenance program, which encompasses the maintenance of roads, roadside features and pedestrian facilities. The maintenance program covers several facilities, including carriageways, footpaths, streetlights, signage, pedestrian overhead bridges, and other structures. Identified defects are treated promptly and potholes are fixed within an average of 24 hours of being reported (LTA 2019d). Additionally, the LTA implemented the Black Stop Program to identify, monitor, and treat locations with a high number of collisions. Public roads and road facilities are checked and maintained regularly. The frequency of checks and maintenance of a road is as follows: • Expressways: daily • Major roads: every two weeks • Minor roads: once every two months 30 3. Speed Management Speed is considered a key risk factor in collision severity and causation of collisions. Speed accounts for approximately 30 percent of road deaths in high-income countries, and it is estimated that speed is the main contributing factor for half of all road collisions occurring in low- and middle-income countries (WHO 2018). The number of speeding violations detected in Singapore was 156,157 in 2018. This represents a 5 percent decrease from 164,319 violations in 2017. Speed-related collisions amounted to 719 cases in 2018, a 5.6 percent decrease from 762 cases in 2017 (Singapore Traffic Police 2019). Roads in Singapore are classified in five categories based on their function: 1. Expressways form the primary network where all long-distance traffic movements should be directed. They are planned to optimize long-distance mobility from one part of the island to another. 2. Major arterial roads predominantly carry through traffic from one region to another, forming principle avenues of communication for urban traffic movements. They connect expressways with minor arterial and other major arterial roads. 3. Minor arterial roads distribute traffic within the major residential and industrial areas. They are planned to optimize circulation within the area and facilitate through traffic between adjacent towns. 4. Primary access roads form the link between local accesses and arterial roads. They provide access to developments, and through-traffic is discouraged. However, where a development is also accessible by a local access road, the access shall be located at the local access road. 5. Local access roads give direct access to buildings and other developments and should connect only with primary access (LTA 2019b). 3.1. Setting speed limits Speed limits should be set by evidence and should be self-explaining, seeking to reinforce the driver’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. Speed limits should encourage drivers to be self-compliant. Drivers should view the speed limit as the maximum speed and not a target speed. There is a strong correlation between the probability of a collision—as well as the severity of injuries sustained due to a collision—and speed. Research has shown that the probability of a collision can be reduced by 5 percent with every 1 mile-per-hour (1.6 kilometers per hour) reduction in average speeds (Taylor, Lynam, and Baruya 2000). 31 When setting an appropriate speed limit for a road, several essential factors are taken into consideration: • History of collisions: including the frequency, severity, types and causes • Road geometry and engineering: including width, sightlines, bends, junctions, accesses and safety barriers • Road function: strategic, including through-traffic and local access • Composition of road users: including existing and potential levels of vulnerable road users • Existing traffic speeds • Road environment: including level of road-side development There are several approaches used when setting appropriate speed limits: • Engineering approach: the base speed limit of a road is set according to several factors, including the 85th percentile speed, the design speed of the road, and other conditions. • Expert system approach: speed limits are determined by the use of computer programs that take into consideration several factors relating to road conditions. • Safety systems approach: speed limits are based on the type of collision that can occur, the likely severity of the collisions, and the human body’s tolerances to the forces of the collision. 3.2. Enforcement of speed limits The enforcement of traffic regulations falls under the responsibility of the Singapore Traffic Police. The Road Traffic Act states that the speed limit for vehicles travelling along roads in Singapore is limited to 50 kilometers per hour unless stated otherwise (Statutes of The Republic of Singapore 2004). The LTA bears the responsibility of determining the speed limit for roads in Singapore. Table 3.1 presents the speed limit for different vehicles travelling on roads and expressways and in tunnels in Singapore. Table 3.1. Singapore Speed Limits (kilometers per hour) Type of vehicle Roads Expressways Tunnels Cars and motorcycles 50 70–90 50–80 Buses and coaches 50 60 50–60 Light commercial vehicles (includes light goods 50 60–70 50–70 vehicles and small buses not exceeding 3.5 tones and seating capacity of up to 15 passengers) 32 Exceptions to speed limits stated in Table 3.1 do apply to fire emergency vehicles, ambulances, and government vehicles used by the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Civil Defence Force. Lower speed limits are enforced in designated zones. These include School Zones and Silver Zones where speed limits are set at 40 kilometers per hour. School Zones are roads in close proximity to a school or roads located between School Zone signs. Silver Zones are located in residential neighborhoods. In addition to lower speed limits (when possible), several safety features are implemented in order to enhance road safety for elderly pedestrians. Silver Zone features are the following: • Rest points are created on the road divider, to assist elder pedestrians crossing in two stages (Photo 3.1). Photo 3.1. Two-Stage Crossing Source: LTA 2017b. • Upon entering the Silver Zone, road signs are displayed in addition to three rumble strips on the road to slow drivers (Photo 3.2). 33 Photo 3.2. Silver Zone Sign and Rumble Strips, Bukit Merah View Source: LTA 2017b. • Other traffic features, including chicanes, reduced lane widths and gentle curves along sections of the road (Photo 3.3). Photo 3.3. Chicanes, Bukit Merah View Source: LTA 2017b. 34 3.3. Speed cameras Speed cameras have long been used as an effective method of reducing traffic speeds and thus reducing casualties and collisions. Several speed camera studies have shown that speed cameras can lead to a reduction in the number of collisions. In some cases, collisions can be reduced by as much as 27 percent (Pérez et al. 2007). Speed cameras are one of the speed enforcement measures utilized in Singapore. Four different types are used: fixed speed camera, mobile speed camera, police speed laser camera, and average-speed camera. There are a total of 87 speed camera locations across Singapore. The location of the speed cameras is presented in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1. Speed Camera Locations, Singapore Source: Traffic Police The different types of speed cameras used in Singapore are presented in Photo 3.4, Photo 3.5, Photo 3.6, and Photo 3.7. 35 Photo 3.4. Fixed Speed Camera, Singapore Photo 3.5. Mobile Speed Camera, Singapore 36 Photo 3.6. Police Speed Laser Camera Source : Straits Times 2016 Photo 3.7. Average-Speed Camera, Singapore There is a perception among certain members of the public that speed cameras are only a revenue-generating apparatus used by authorities. Although the use of speed cameras can generate significant income for authorities, their effectiveness in reducing collisions is undeniable. 37 Figure 3.2. Speeding Violations 2010–18, Singapore Figure 3.2 shows the number of speeding violations recorded by the Singapore Traffic Police, who are operating the speed cameras, between 2010 and 2018. A noticeable decline in the number of violations is observed between 2014 and 2015. Speeding violations declined from 278,545 in 2014 to 186,838, in 2015 representing a 33 percent decrease. 1 This decline can be directly attributed to measures implemented by the Singapore Traffic Police, such as the installation 20 speed cameras at 11 locations on March 1, 2015. However, it is difficult to know whether this decline is due entirely to the introduction of new speed cameras and/or other contributing factors. 3.4. Traffic-calming measures Traffic calming is a system that uses various design and management strategies to achieve a balance of traffic on roads and streets, particularly those with vulnerable road users. Traffic- calming measures not only act to slow down vehicles but also improve safety and convenience for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. This can be achieved, for example, by implementing measures to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. Traffic-calming measures can include the following: • Vertical and horizontal measures such as road humps, chicanes, and road narrowing 1 Fines collected by government agencies go into the Ministry of Finance’s Consolidated Fund, as defined by the Constitution of Singapore. 38 • Optical measures, which include the use of rumble strips, shortened sightlines, and road surface changes, including color and texture • Changes to road environments, including the abundant use of vegetation and placement of street furniture • Lower speed limit zones, which include School Zones or Silver Zones. Photo 3.8. Centre Refuge Island, Singapore Source: LTA 2016. Traffic-calming measures can be found on several Singapore streets, including central refuge islands. These are usually positioned at zebra crossings along undivided two-lane roads. The positioning of the center refuge island along the carriageway assists pedestrians in crossing the road in two stages. Additionally, the pedestrian island structure narrows the width of the carriageway, alerting vehicles to slow down. The pedestrians crossing is slightly raised, acting as a speed hump. This also makes the crossing more visible to oncoming vehicles. The design specification for a raised pedestrian crossing is provided in appendix A. An example of a center refuge island is presented in Photo 3.8. Center dividers provide a physical segregation of oncoming traffic, in addition to narrowing the width of the carriageway so oncoming vehicles approach at a slower speed. An example of a center divider located on Singapore road is presented in Photo 3.9. The photo on the right-hand side includes as treatment calcined bauxite (skid resistance treatment). That is good practice at pedestrian crossings, bends, and locations where the likelihood of running off the road is high. 39 Photo 3.9. Centre Divider, Singapore Source: LTA 2016. Chevron markings are used as an alternative to physical structures. The markings lead the driver to perceive the road narrower than it is, thus slowing vehicles. An example is presented in Photo 3.10. Photo 3.10. Chevron Markings, Singapore Source: LTA 2016. Physical measures used to calm traffic include road humps. Road humps can be effective in reducing vehicle speeds along minor arterial roads. Vehicles drivers are alerted to the presence of the speed hump prior to approaching it, giving them time to reduce their speed. Bus-friendly road humps are implemented on bus routes. They are designed to allow buses to pass safely. An example of a road hump in Singapore is presented in Photo 3.11. 40 Photo 3.11. Road Hump, Singapore Source: LTA 2016. Hatching can be provided along the edge of a carriageway at the turn of a road. This is seen in Photo 3.12, where there is a high number of jaywalkers and driver visibility is reduced due to the presence of vegetation and street furniture. The hatching along the carriageway gives the perception of a narrower carriageway, guiding drivers away from the edge of the carriageway where a pedestrian could be present. Photo 3.12. Hatching Marking, Oldham Lane, Singapore In summary, traffic-calming measures can be used as a cost-effective measure to improve the safety of a road. 41 4. Road Infrastructure “Safer roads and safer mobility” is the second pillar of the UN Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. The necessity to increase the safety and quality of road networks for all road users, especially the most vulnerable, is highly emphasized in this pillar. In order to achieve this, measures such as improved safety-conscious planning, design, construction, and operation of roads need to be adopted. Road infrastructure, which includes roadway and roadside design elements, can have a significant role in determining the risk of a traffic collision. A collision can be caused directly due to a defect on the road, or in some cases misleading elements of the road environment can lead to human error. Road safety design concepts such as “forgiving” and “self-explaining” roads are significant and should be adopted in the design of roads in order to reduce and minimize the risk of traffic collisions. There is a strong correlation between poor road design and a higher risk of a collision. Roads should be self-explaining, providing guidance to roads users on what they should be doing. Collisions can be triggered by negative road engineering factors or misleading road environments which lead to collisions through human error. 4.1. Road parameters The inadequate design of a road can be a leading causation factor for a collision. Several road design parameters are considered to have a significant impact on the safety of a road. The cross-section of a road can have a significant impact on the frequency of collisions. Research has shown that there is a correlation between carriageway width and the collision rate of a road. There is a direct tendency for the collision rate to increase with increased lane widths (Othman, Thomson, and Lannér 2009). This can be attributed to lane change maneuvers and higher speeds experienced on wider carriageways. Road surface conditions contribute significantly to the usability and safety of a road. Several studies have looked at the relationship between collisions and road surface parameters such as pavement roughness and friction. The studies have shown that pavement conditions expressed in terms of the International Roughness Index have significant impact on the collision rate of a road (Tighe et al. 2000). Road marking and road signs are significant road features that guide and inform drivers about their surroundings. Inadequate signage or inconsistent signage can misinform or confuse drivers this can likely lead to a collision. Therefore, it is essential that road signs be consistent, 42 conspicuous, and comprehensible. Road markings and road signs usually complement one another by providing guidance to the road user. Roadside conditions can have a great impact on the safety of a road. Obstructions and inadequate roadside safety measures such as crash barriers can contribute to collisions. Obstructions located on roadsides include sign posts, traffic signal boxes, and other street furniture. When designing safe roads, adequate lateral offset to vertical obstructions such as sign posts is required in order to reduce likelihood of crashes. Road curvature and speed are connected parameters in road design that reduce the probability of a collision. A vehicle navigating around the curved section of road experiences centrifugal forces. These forces try to deviate the vehicle from the desired line of movement. Super elevation is provided at the curved sections of roads in order to prevent vehicles from deviating from the desired line. The curvature of a road is designed to accommodate vehicles travelling at a certain speed. Therefore, vehicles travelling at speeds above the design speed of the curve will lose control. The inability of a driver to see ahead is considered as a collision causation factor. A sight distance of sufficient length is required in order for a driver to safely control a vehicle in order to avoid hitting an unanticipated object on the road (Ahmed 2013). Guidance on safe stopping sight distances can be found within the LTA Code of Practice (LTA 2019b). Figure 4.1. Sight Stopping Distance Source: LTA 2019b. Figure 4.1 shows the parameters required in order to calculate a safe sight distance at junctions where pedestrians and cyclists are present. 43 4.2. Safer roadsides for forgiving roads A large number of research studies have been conducted in the past years, studies which contributed to the development of the road design standards for improving roadside design. They suggest that the stages in any strategy for improving the siting and design of street equipment can be further developed and extended (ETSC 1998), as shown in table 4.1. Table 4.1. Main Principles for Forgiving Roads Existing roads Designed roads Eliminating unnecessary Designing roads free of obstacles obstacles Moving obstacles further Designing a clear zone at the away from the roadside side of the road Modifying the structure of the Designing street equipment to obstacles be more forgiving Isolating certain obstacles Protecting street equipment with new and improved types with a barrier to absorb some of safety devices of the energy of the impact To develop a forgiving road environment, certain characteristics must be included, and standard road safety measures should be taken, such as the assessment of the effectiveness of a roadside treatment. The aim of the forgiving roads approach to road design is not only to prevent collisions from occurring but also to reduce the damage inflicted on the driver if a collision does happen due to human error. A forgiving road is largely based on how the roadside is designed and equipped, taking into consideration how several inadequately designed roadside elements pose a risk to drivers. A series of measures can be implemented to create forgiving roads. They are presented in the following subsections. 4.2.1. Vehicle impact guardrail Vehicle impact guardrails (VIGs) or safety barriers are a form of forgiving roadside treatment, designed to prevent vehicles from running off the carriageway. However, VIGs can also act as a hazard in circumstances where installation is incorrect or the wrong type of VIG is used. The VIG ends are considered hazardous when the end is not properly anchored to the ground, or when it does not flare away from the carriageway (La Torre 2012). Collisions with an “unforgiving” VIG end can result in fatal consequences. 44 VIGs can be classified as energy-absorbing and non-energy-absorbing, dependent on whether it is a tangent terminal or a flared terminal. Tangent terminals are aligned parallel to the carriageway edge and are energy absorbent; they are designed to stop a vehicle. Flared terminals deviate from the alignment of the carriageway edge; typically they are not designed to dissipate significant amounts of energy when a head on collision occurs. Design specifications for guardrails can be found within the LTA Standard Details of Road Elements document. A copy of a good practice guardrail design specification is provided within appendix B. 4.2.2. Rumble strips Rumble strips are a road safety feature designed to alert drivers to potential hazards. When a vehicle comes into contact with the rumble strips a rumbling sound is transmitted in addition to a vibrating effect. In Singapore, rumble strips are typically used in pedestrian priority areas such as Silver Zones. Three yellow rumble strips are installed in order to alert vehicle drivers of pedestrians. 4.2.3. Raised profile marking Raised profile markings function similarly to rumble strips. They can be installed along a carriageway in order to prevent vehicles from deviating. This road safety feature is particularly useful in preventing drowsy or distracted drivers from causing a potential collision; drivers are alerted by the vibration and sound emitted from the strips. The LTA provides guidance on where raised profile markings should be provided. Raised profile markings are to be provided for the following (LTA 2017b): • From the start of the shoulder marking at the exit road to 10 meters behind the gore area • From the start of chevron to 10 meters after the gore area • From the start of the deceleration lane along the expressway next to pave shoulder • Continuously along the expressway shoulder lane next to slow lane Design specification for raised profile markings provided by within the LTA SDRA are presented in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3. 45 Figure 4.2. Raised Profile Marking Figure 4.3. Raised Profile Marking, Side Profile View 4.2.4. Crash cushions Crash cushions are considered highly effective in reducing the consequences of a crash. The crash cushion is designed to absorb the impact of the collision. Crash cushions are usually positioned in front of diverging roads and along expressways and major arterial roads. The use of crash cushions has been very effective in some cases. A 40 percent reduction in injury crashes was observed at study sites in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The treated site also experienced a reduction in the number of fatal and serious crashes from 67 percent to 14 percent (TMS Consultancy 1994). Photo 4.1 provides an example of a typical crash cushion found along an expressway in Singapore. Photo 4.1. Crash Cushion, Singapore Source: LTA 2019. 46 4.3. Self-explaining roads Self-explaining roads are designed so that the appropriate speed and driving behavior required on the road is self-evident to drivers. Self-explaining roads can be implemented through the implementation of several measures such as appropriate road markings and roadside features (photo 4.2). Photo 4.2. Examples of Self-Explaining Roads in Singapore Self-explaining roads have been successfully implemented in several urban areas around the world. According to a study undertaken by Charlton et al. (2010), the implementation of self- explaining roads resulted in a significant reduction in vehicle speeds. The study area was segregated into two sections, one receiving treatment measures such as increased landscaping and limiting forward visibility and the other receiving no treatment. The results of the study showed a significant reduction in vehicles speeds for the section that had received the treatments. 4.4. Pedestrian footbridges Separation of different traffic flows depending on types of road users is very important to ensure increased safety, especially for the most vulnerable users. Based on this principle, Singapore is hosting a high number of user-friendly and attractive footbridges. These are positioned near bus stations and mass-rapid transit stations, are accessorized with elevators for the elderly and the disabled, and linked to sheltered footpaths going to and from 47 residential areas. Basically, these footbridges become points of attractions or standing gardens across the city, as in photo 4.3. Photo 4.3. Examples of Frequently Used Footbridges in Singapore 48 5. Dangerous Infrastructure 5.1. Identifying dangerous existing streets Several methods can be utilized to assess the safety of a street or road. This includes road safety audits and collision hotspot schemes. A road safety audit can be undertaken for an existing road or route on the road network. The aim of a road safety audit of an existing road is to identify hazards that may cause a collision in the future. Remedial measures can be applied to hazards identified during the safety audit. Collision data are an important factor in identifying and treating collision hotspots. However, collision data are prone to confounding factors of regression toward the mean and general collision trends. A confounding factor is any factor other than the measure whose effects the study is designed to evaluate (Elvik 2002). Regression to the mean is the tendency for unusually high or low counts to be followed by values closer to the underlying mean. General trends in collisions can be observed due to several factors such as changes in vehicle safety and driver education. (Thorpe 2018). Collision data should be comprehensive and inclusive of the following information: • General collision information: date, location, road features, speed limit, junction features, weather and lighting conditions, and road surfaces • Vehicles involved: type, maneuvers, location, skidding and overturning, striking objects, points of impact, age, gender and address of driver, alcohol test, vehicle registration, and journey purpose • Casualties involved: type of casualty (for example, driver, pedestrian), gender, age and severity of causality, location and movement direction, front versus rear passenger, and address • Contributory factors: road environments, vehicle defects, injudicious actions, driver and/or rider error or reaction, impairment or distraction, behavior or inexperience (Thorpe 2018) Collision hotspots can be identified by looking at a baseline period, which is usually three to five years. Clusters are identified by defining a minimum threshold in a defined radius. A collision hotspot can then be defined as an area in which the number of collisions exceeds the predetermined threshold during the baseline period. As previously stated, collision data is prone to confounding factors, which can be misleading. Confounding factors can lead to false positives, which in turn can result in a non-hotspot area 49 being treated. Additionally, there is a risk of false negatives, which can result in a genuinely unsafe site being left untreated. Since 2005, the LTA has implemented a road safety initiative known as the Black Spot Programme. The key objective of the Black Spot Programme is to identify, monitor, and treat locations with a high number of traffic collisions. The Black Spot Programme has proven to be a success with an average of 5 to 10 locations being removed per year due to the collision rate falling below the defined threshold level. The program has resulted in a 75 percent drop in collisions over a three-year period in some cases (LTA 2014). A range of interventions have been used, included the provision of signalized pedestrian crossings. One success case of the Black Spot Programme is the Moulmein Road–Newton Road—Thomson Road junction. The junction was monitored for 36 months; prior to treatment a total of 19 collisions were recorded compared to 7 after treatment. The treatment at the junction comprised of the provision of a fully controlled right turn (red-amber-green arrows). This is presented in Photo 5.1. Photo 5.1. Fully Controlled Right Turn (red-amber-green arrows) Additional methods utilized in Singapore for identification of dangerous roads or streets include the LTA road maintenance program discussed in previous sections. The LTA frequently checks and maintains roads and road facilities on the road network. Expressways are checked and maintained on a daily basis, major roads are checked and maintained every two weeks, and minor roads are checked and maintained every two months. Identified defects are treated promptly, and potholes are fixed within an average of 24 hours of being reported (LTA 2014). 50 5.2. Dangerous road designs Badly designed roads can be a major contributing factor leading to a collision. Faults can include road defects and misleading road infrastructure. Several different road elements such as markings, signs, road geometry, lighting, road surface, and traffic and speed management are essential to maintain the safety of a road. Roads are considered one of the key causation factors of collisions, together with human and vehicle factors. Road alignment has a significant influence on the safety of a road, which includes the dimension of radii, ratio of consecutive curves, dimensions of vertical curves, and sight distance conditions. (Mohammed 2013) Road design standards in Singapore are set and regulated by the LTA. Road designers follow guidelines and standards included within several LTA publications, such as the LTA Code of Practice and the LTA Standard Details of Road Element. Examples of standard design elements can be found in the appendixes of this report. The guidance and standards provided do promote safe design, but without comprehensive audits, significant safety hazards can be neglected. Photo 5.2. Signal box located unsafely on the edge of the carriageway, Singapore 51 Photo 5.2 shows a signal control box positioned on the carriageway at a bend in the road. This hazard was identified during a Post Construction Safety Review. Hazards such as the one present in photo above pose a risk to drivers. Without road safety audits, hazard like this can go unnoticed until it’s too late (LTA 2019). Photo 5.3. Inadequate Visibility Along Vertical Curve, Singapore There is inadequate visibility along the vertical curve of the road displayed in Photo 5.3. Driver’s visibility and sight stopping distance are greatly affected, as drivers are unable to see and react to potential hazards which lay ahead. 5.3. Dangerous Pedestrian and Cyclist Infrastructure Pedestrians and cyclists are considered the most vulnerable road users. Surprisingly, it is very common in many countries to focus on road design to accommodate vehicles and neglect the need for safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. This can be due to shortcomings in road design standards or a lack thereof. Vulnerable road users, which include pedestrians, cyclists and motorized two- and three- wheelers, account for over half of all road deaths globally. In Southeast Asia, motorized two- and three-wheelers account for the highest proportion of road deaths, meaning approximately 43 percent of the total numbers of road fatalities (WHO 2018a). Although Singapore has been making strides in promoting walking and cycling, pedestrians and cyclists are still very vulnerable on roads. The number of collisions on Singapore roads involving pedestrians was 1,036 in 2018, with elderly pedestrians accounting for 25 percent 52 of pedestrian collisions. Pedestrian fatalities in 2018 were 40; 62.5 percent were elderly pedestrians. Jaywalking is attributed to 40 percent of collisions involving elderly pedestrians (Singapore Traffic Police 2019). Although the quality and provision of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure is considered better than that of neighboring countries, inferior pedestrian and cycling facilities can still be found around the country. Photo 5.4. Unremoved Crossing, Singapore Photo 5.4 shows two pedestrian crossings with tactile paving. The crossing directed toward the main carriageway on the left formed part of a crossing across the main carriageway, which is now removed, but the dropped curb and tactile paving remain in place. The unremoved dropped curb and tactile paving can be confusing and pose a risk to pedestrians, especially visibility impaired pedestrians. Inadequate design of pedestrian infrastructure is an unfortunate but recurring theme in some streets in Singapore. The common design errors observed include no dropped curbs and tactile paving at pedestrian crossing areas, incorrect positioning of tactile paving, inadequate widths of pedestrian footpaths, and dangerous level changes along edge of pedestrian footpaths. 53 Photo 5.5. Inadequate Crossing, Singapore Photo 5.5 shows a crossing area where adequate dropped curbs and tactile paving is provided on one side but not the other. Inadequate pedestrian infrastructure such as that presented in Photo 5.6 impacts the most vulnerable of pedestrians. A significant level of difference can be seen along the pedestrian footpath, which poses a high risk to pedestrians, especially vulnerable pedestrians. Photo 5.6. Hazardous Footpath, Singapore 54 Dangerous designs can also be found in temporary road works, where inadequate or unsafe pedestrian infrastructure is sometimes provided (LTA 2019). Photo 5.7. Inadequate Crossing The location and positioning of the plastic barricades in Photo 5.7 forced pedestrians onto a live carriageway, putting them in potential danger. 55 6. Safer Design Principles: Before-and-After Study on Sustainable Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure Singapore has implemented a range of measures such as Certificates of Entitlement and road pricing to maintain adequate capacity on roads. In recent times, initiatives such as Car-Lite have been introduced in order to promote sustainable modes of transport and reduce dependency of cars. Several roads have been redeveloped and equipped with infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and cycling. Bencoolen Street in Singapore is an example of this, having recently undergone a transformation to become more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Bencoolen Street was formerly a four-lane street with no cycle infrastructure and narrow pedestrian footpaths. The past street configuration is presented in Photo 6.1. Photo 6.1. Previous Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore The new revitalized Bencoolen Street provides pedestrians with wider footpaths and cyclists have segregated cycle paths. The carriageway width has been reduced to two lanes in order to accommodate the provision of a cycling path and wider pedestrian footpaths. Photo 6.2 and Photo 6.3 and show Bencoolen Street after improvements have been implemented. 56 Photo 6.2. New Street Configuration, Bencoolen Street, Singapore Photo 6.2 shows the reduced carriageway width of Bencoolen Street. A cycle lane can be seen in red adjacent to the pedestrian footpath. Photo 6.3. Improved Pedestrian Facilities, Bencoolen Street, Singapore The revitalized Bencoolen Street can be seen in Photo 6.3. The provision of segregated cycle lanes, cycle parking, and wide pedestrian footpaths have made the area more sustainable and inclusive to pedestrians and cyclists. 57 7. Conclusions We are still in an era where road engineers are focused only on design standards and creating roads for cars. Even if a street goes next to a school, if there’s too much traffic, what is the first recommendation? “Let’s add another lane!” This couldn’t be more wrong. It is necessary to change this mentality in order to have safer streets, and Singapore is a good example of success story for building a safer road infrastructure for safer communities, especially through the coordination of different institutions. Let’s make road engineers think “Safety First!” Singapore enjoys a high level of safety on its road network due several complementary factors. Local authorities have made significant progress in addressing the road safety issue faced by the nation. Government agencies such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Singapore Traffic Police (TP) have contributed significantly to road safety on Singapore’s roads. Road safety management under the LTA and the implementation of numerous road safety measures and tools such as the Black Spot Programme and road safety audits and collision data collection by the TP have made a positive contribution to the success of road safety in Singapore. A crucial aspect for the success of a road safety program is to have a dedicated budget and good data to analyze the most vulnerable locations that need immediate treatments. There is no single solution to tackle road safety, but there are collective solutions. These include improved education and awareness linked to high vehicle standards, improved design and maintenance of road and roadsides, and better road management systems. 58 References Ahmed, I. 2013. “Road Infrastructure and Road Safety.” Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific 83: 19–25. Austroads. 2019a. Guide to Road Safety, part 6, “Managing Road Safety Audits.” Sydney: Austroads. Austroads. 2019b. Guide to Road Safety, part 6A, “Implementing Road Safety Audits.” Sydney: Austroads. Charlton, S. G., H. W. Mackie, P. H. Baas, K. Hay, M. Menezes, and C. Dixon. 2010. “Using Endemic Road Features to Create Self-Explaining Roads and Reduce Vehicle Speeds.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 426: 1989–1998. Elvik, R. 2002. “The Importance of Confounding in observational before-and-after Studies of Road Safety Measures.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 345: 631–5. ETSC (European Transport Safety Council). 1998. Forgiving Roadsides. Grzebieta R. H., L. Mooren, and S. Job. 2013. Introduction (or Reintroduction) to the Safe System Approach, “Roadside Safety Design and Devices,” in R. Troutbeck, editor, Transportation Research Circular no. E-C172. Milan, Italy: Transportation Research Board of the National academies. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec172.pdf. ITF (International Transport Forum). 2016. Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/publications/zero-road-deaths-and-serious-injuries-9789282108055- en.htm. La Torre, F. 2012. Forgiving roadsides design guide no. 2013/09. LTA (Land Transport Authority). 2014. “Factsheet: Enhancing Safety on Our Roads for All Road Users.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=91de65eb-fea5-48f6-b101- 5573dc68face. LTA. 2016. “Factsheet on Completion of New Road Safety Measures at 10 Pilot Primary Schools.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=59d4005d- c2e3-4c17-9ee6-06daab5cfc44. LTA. 2017a. “Procedures on Importation and Registration of a Car in Singapore.” Singapore: LTA. 59 LTA. 2017b. “Silver Zones.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/projects/road-and- commuter-facilities/silver-zones.html. LTA. 2019a. “Certificate of Entitlement COE | Vehicle Quota System | Owning a Vehicle | Roads & Motoring.” Singapore: LTA. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and- motoring/owning-a-vehicle/vehicle-quota-system/certificate-of-entitlement-coe.html. LTA. 2019b. “Code of Practice—Street Work Proposals Relating to Development Works.” Singapore: LTA. LTA. 2019c. “PSR Roads Process.” Singapore: LTA. LTA. 2019d. “Road Maintenance Programme | Maintaining Our Roads & Facilities | Road Safety & Regulations | Roads & Motoring.” https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/road-safety-and- regulations/maintaining-our-roads-and-facilities/road-maintenance-programme.html. LTA. 2019e. Road Safety Guide Book: Temporary Road Works for LTA Projects. Singapore: LTA. Mohammed, Hameed. 2013. “The Influence of Road Geometric Design Elements on Highway Safety.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 4: 146–62. Othman, S., R. Thomson, and G. Lannér. 2009. “Identifying Critical Road Geometry Parameters Affecting Crash Rate and Crash Type.” Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference 53, 155–165. Peden, M. 2004. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Pérez, K., M. Marí-Dell’Olmo, A. Tobias, and C Borrell. 2007. “Reducing Road Traffic Injuries: Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting.” American Journal of Public Health 979: 1632–1637. Retting, R. A., S. A. Ferguson, and A. S. Hakkert. 2003. “Effects of Red-Light Cameras on Violations and Crashes: A Review of the International Literature.” Traffic Injury Prevention 41: 17–23. Singapore Traffic Police. 2019. “Statistics.” https://www.police.gov.sg/news-and- publications/statistics?category=Road Traffic Situation#content. Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. 2004. Road Traffic Act. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/. 60 Straits Times. 2016. “Traffic Police's New Portable Speed Laser Cameras: Where Can You Find Them.” Straits Times, May 20. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/traffic-polices-new-portable-speed- laser-cameras-where-can-you-find-them. Taylor, M. C., D. A. Lynam, and A. Baruya. 2000. The Effects of Drivers' Speed on the Frequency of Road Accidents. TRL report 421. Crowthorne, UK: TRL. Thorpe, N. 2018. “Identifying Collision Hotspots and Evaluating Road Safety Schemes: A Case Study of Road Safety Cameras in the UK and Practitioner Software.” UK: Newcastle University. Tighe, S., N. Li, L. C. Falls, and R. Haas. 2000. “Incorporating Road Safety into Pavement Management.” Transportation Research Record 16991: 1–10. TMS Consultancy. 1994. Research on Loss of Control Accidents on Warwickshire Motorways and Dual Carriageways. Coventry, UK: TMS Consultancy. Wegman, Fred, Hans-Yngve Berg, Iain Cameron, Claire Thompson, Stefan Siegrist, and Wendy Weijermars. 2017. “Evidence-Based and Data-Driven Road Safety Management.” IATSS Research 39 (1). Welle, B., A. B. Sharpin, C. Adriazola-Steil, S. Job, M. Shotten, D. Bose, A. Bhatt, S. Alveano, M. Obelheiro, and T. Imamoglu. 2018. Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for zero Road Deaths. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road- deaths. WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/global_plan_decade.pdf WHO. 2018a. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. Geneva: WHO. WHO. 2018b. “The Top 10 Causes of Death.” Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. World Bank. 2017. The High Toll of Traffic Injuries: Unacceptable and Preventable. Washington, DC: World Bank. PIARC (World Road Association). 2015. Road Safety Manual. New York: United Nations. https://roadsafety.piarc.org/en/road-safety-management-safe-system-approach/safe- system-elements. 61 Appendix A – Pedestrian Infrastructure Design Guidance 62 CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT LEGEND RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS (AMBER) 'PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROHIBITION' SIGN TO BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO D REFER TO LANE MARKINGS THE 'ARROW' SIGN FLASHN IGBEACO T NWI P H'EDESTRA INCROSSN IG'SG I NS 'ARROW' SIGN TO BE PLACED PARALLEL TO SIDE OF ROAD HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES ALL SIGNS TO BE CLAMPED ONTO THE NEAREST EXISTING LAMPPOSTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND SUBJECT TO SO'S APPROVAL 600 3m 600 1.6m 200 200 1.6m C L 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 1m S A X L H - J E O I N m A 1 W G D 1m W G D 0 A N 0 O J I 6 E A L - H X - S A m 0 1 60 ZEBRA CROSSING DIRECTION OF TRAVEL K YELLOW CHECKER MARKING PLAN SCALE 1:250 1400 3000 1400 CHAMFER ZEBRA CROSSING CHAMFER 100 50 50 CARRIAGEWAY LEVEL 500 500 TO BE RAISED BY WEARING COURSE SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Footpath joining pedestrian crossings shall be flushed with zebra crossing. 2. Checker markings to be painted in yellow. DRAWING NO. REV. RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM5 B B SEP 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 9-5 CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 100 0 0 0 5 2 2 3 4 4 0 0 200 15000 2520 30000 30000 2520 15000 2520 3 3 2520 4000 6 6 0 0 5 5 1 0 0 1 49 30 A H 6 H A U DIRECTION E A M OF TRAVEL - D P D MP EA DIRECTION 0 0 U H 8 8 H OF TRAVEL 9 9 A 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 2 4 5 6 4 4 8 2 1 HUMP YELLOW STRIPS 150 WIDE 45° 0 0 0 3 TYPICAL PAVEMENT WARNING MESSAGE FOR ROAD HUMP 2 2 6 4 4 90 0 SCALE 1:400 4 5 0 0 5 1 1 200 80 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 2 2 4 4 150 5 4 4 Y-AXIS 0 8 32 50 68 92 100 3 100 c L X-AXIS 0 400 800 1000 1200 1600 2000 300 200 200 200 200 200 300 200 280 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Y Y 2980 PARABOLIC S-CURVE X TO BE RAISED BY PREMIX W3B X 00 CARRIAGEWAY LEVEL 1 50 0 800 2400 800 0 0 0 3 2 4 4 4 4000 0 0 4 8 8 0 2 05 SECTION A-A 1 SCALE 1:25 0 0 0 7 9 5 7 1 5 820 0 1 28 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 420 20 1 0 0 5 2 0 4 840 4000 0 0 8 5 2 0 0 0 5 1 45° 1 3 9 60 0 0 5 4 2 0 4 WIDTH OF CARRIAGEWAY 4 30 200 100 200 200 150 100 150 100 200 100 100 200 100 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 100 COLOUR SCHEME FOR HUMP MARKINGS FOR HUMP AHEAD SCALE 1:20 SCALE 1:30 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Thickness of thermoplastic paint for hump ahead marking is 3mm. DRAWING NO. REV. ROAD HUMP LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM6 A A SEP 2017 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 9-6 CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 100 100 600 600 2150 3.7m 2150 2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 8m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m DIRECTION OF TRAVEL H A U H M E A P D D MP EA U A A H H A - - 150 WIDE YELLOW STRIPES AT 45° YELLOW CHECKER DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND 200 WIDE APART MARKING PLAN SCALE 1:250 1300 4000 4000 1300 100 110 100 50 50 500 500 100 8000 100 1200 1200 SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 BUS FRIENDLY HUMP STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING NO. REV. BUS FRIENDLY ROAD HUMP LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM7 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 9-7 CHAPTER 9 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT LEGEND 'PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROHIBITION' SIGN RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS (AMBER) TO BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO D REFER TO LANE MARKINGS THE 'ARROW' SIGN FLASHN IGBEACO T NWI P H'EDESTRA INCROSSN IG'SG I NS 'ARROW' SIGN TO BE PLACED PARALLEL TO SIDE OF ROAD HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES ALL SIGNS TO BE CLAMPED ONTO THE NEAREST EXISTING LAMPPOSTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND SUBJECT TO SO'S APPROVAL 500 500 3m 5m 5m 3m (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) 600 100 100 600 1m 2m 4m 2m 1m 8m DIRECTION OF TRAVEL S X A m L 1 - H O I E A N A W G - 1m m D 1 1.2m m G D 1 W A N 1m I E O - J H L 0 X A 0 S m 6 1 K DIRECTION OF TRAVEL YELLOW CHECKER MARKING 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 30m 30m 2.5m 15m 2.5m 15m 2.5m C L PLAN SCALE 1:250 4000 c L 1000 1000 SEPARATOR 200 200 SEPARATOR 200 200 100 110 100 500 1500 500 4000 500 1500 500 2200 1300 8000 1300 2200 SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 BUS FRIENDLY HUMP CUM RAISED ZEBRA CROSSING NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Footpath joining pedestrian crossings shall be flushed with zebra crossing. 2. Center refuge island shall terminate near a lamp pole. 3. Floodlight to be provided if necessary. 4. The use of skid resistant pavement before the zebra crossing is BUS FRIENDLY HUMP DRAWING NO. REV. recommended, particularly in wet environments. CUM RAISED ZEBRA LTA/SDRE14/9/TMM8 B B SEP 2017 CROSSING A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 9-8 CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE NEXT INTOF PO O I N RSECT N I TE G ENT TAN TANGENT O N IT P POINT 2000m 2000m TANGENT 250 DIA UPVC PIPE (HEAVY DUTY) POINT 2000m 2000m 10000 AT 3m C/C APPROXIMATE 5000 POINTO F BUS STOP (REFER TO COMMUTER N I TERSECTO I N BUS - STOP POLE DETAIL 1 FACILITIES CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS) TANG ENT SCALE 1:100 SLAB THICKNESS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS PO N IT DETAIL 2 SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m C/C (REF DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL3 & 4) SCALE 1:100 FOOTPATH CUM DRAIN PEDESTRIAN GRATING 1800 FOOTPATH WITH CHEQUER PLATE 3800 1500 3000 1800 600 2 F CATCH BASIN 3700 - DROP-INLET CHAMBER EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT EXPANSION JOINT NO. OF 1 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL (FOR DOUBLE AND (REF DWG NO: SDRE14/11/BUS3) A 200 X 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND TYPE DESCRIPTION L EXPANSION TRIPLE BUS BAY) 3 - THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO JOINT BE DRAWN 125mm FROM KERB LINE SDRE14/11/BUS2 (ON PAVED AREA ONLY) 1 2 SINGLE BUS BAY 18m 2 DOUBLE BUS BAY 32m 3 25000 L 20000 980 980 3 TRIPLE BUS BAY 46m 4 KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 150mm KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm TRANSITION TRANSITION TYPICAL SECTION OF BUS BAY SCALE 1:250 80 9 250 DIA UPVC PIPE (HEAVY DUTY) 150 AT 3m C/C APPROXIMATE SLAB THICKNESS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS (REF DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL3 & 4) BUS STOP (REFER TO 10000 COMMUTER FACILITIES CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS) PEDESTRIAN GRATING 80 5000 9 SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m C/C WITH CHEQUER PLATE 125 FOOTPATH CUM DRAIN 0 HK 0 Y 8 A 0T A R W 1 2 GE M RT A IMU M O RRI X NT MA ME CA CE 000 EDGE OF 5 3000 1500 CARRIAGEWAY BUS STOP POLE CATCH BASIN 3 0 YELLOW LINE 0 200 X 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND 30 THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO SDRE14/11/BUS2 RIGID PAVEMENT BE DRAWN 125mm FROM KERB LINE (ON PAVED AREA ONLY) 600 600 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ISOMETRIC VIEW 100 L 980 980 KERB HEIGHT TRANSITION FROM 150mm TO 125mm KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 150mm KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm KERB HEIGHT KERB HEIGHT OF 125mm SCALE 1:30 TRANSITION TRANSITION BUS STOP WITHOUT BUS BAY SCALE 1:250 NOTES: 5. The kerb line (L) shall always be a straight line even when the bus stop is STANDARD DETAIL 1. Size and type of bus shelter shall be subject to approval from LTA. located in a curve / bend. 2. Safety bollards shall be provided at all bus stops, according to the posted speed 6. Where there is site ocnstraints, width of bus bay can be reduced to an limit. absolute minimum of 3m subject to approval from LTA. 3. Location of advertising panel and bus stop sign shall not obstruct pedestrian 7. Safety bollards shall not be erected on scupper pipes. BUS BAY DRAWING NO. REV. movements and the view of the approaching buses. 8. Refer to the table in DWG No: LTA/SDRE14/4/GRA1 for the type and (SHEET 1 OF 2) LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS1 B 4. Where there is site constraints, width of bus bay can be reduced to an absolute spacing of pedestrian grating. B SEPT 2017 minimum of 3m subject to approval from LTA. A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2 11-1 CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT BUS SHELTER (REFER TO COMMUTER FACILITIES CHECKLIST FOR DETAILS) CARRIAGEWAY BUS BAY 600 1800 1m (MINIMUM CLEARANCE) SAFETY BOLLARD 25 THK RIGID PAVEMENT SLAB THICKNESS AND REINFORCEMENT DETAILS GRANOLITHIC FINISH (REF. DWG NO: SDRE14/14/BOL 3 & 4) SEPARATING SHEET 1:100 100 THK HARDCORE 1:20 250 DIA UPVC SCUPPER PIPE CATCH BASIN (HEAVY DUTY) 3 TYPICAL SECTION OF BUS BAY / SHELTER SCALE 1:50 DRAIN RE ' WI GUL T Wi Ve HI NPa Ex A NB th T h c i ORY S n Ba i A c e rk Y l p e ' s t s y ' IGN R5m R5m 3m R5m CARRIAGEWAY BUS BAY R5m RIGID PAVEMENT 3 RIGID PAVEMENT I I 150 A DIRECTION OF TRAVEL 225 5 9000 10000 4000 10 200M UM ) NI 0 LAYBY FOR NPARKS' WATER TANKER MI 30 ( SCALE 1:250 SUB-BASE SUB-GRADE DETAIL 3 REF DWG NO: SDRE14/11/BUS1 SCALE 1:25 STANDARD DETAIL BUS BAY / LAYBY FOR DRAWING NO. REV. NPARKS' WATER TANKER LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS2 B B SEPT 2017 (SHEET 2 OF 2) A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 2 OF 2 11-2 CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT WELDING THROUGHOUT 45 45 R13 52.5 52.5 0 5 5 2 1 4 6 DIA HOLE AT ROAD LEVEL BASE R20 DOWEL BAR R20 DOWEL BAR ROAD LEVEL 40 60 DIA.13 AT 45 C/C VIEW E SCALE 1:20 VERTICAL ALUMINIUM GRATING SCALE 1:20 DETAIL 1 SCALE 1:3 BUS SHELTER PLATFORM 100 600 100 150 200 125 275 100 COMPLETE ASSEMBLY EXCLUDING R6 BAR TO BE GALVANISED 780 X 255 X 26 THK 15mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH BEFORE CASTING OF SLAB CONCRETE SLAB VERTICAL 25mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH ALUMINIUM GRATING R13 1 A A K2 KERB 0 5 R6 0 5 1 2 DIA 13 0 5 5 5 5 R20 R20 R6 2 47 375 5 1: 5 42 KERB E 1:20 FOUNDATION 350 X 400 0 KERB FOUNDATION 10 780 250 DIA UPVC PIPE B KERB WSFR B8 PLAN VIEW OF SLAB FOR CATCH BASIN PLAN VIEW OF CATCH BASIN SECTION B-B SCALE 1:10 SCALE 1:25 SCALE 1:20 780 X 255 X 26 THK CONCRETE SLAB 2 15 45 X 45 X 4 GALVANISED M.S. ANGLE 15mm THK. GRANOLITHIC FINISH APPROVED SEALER WELDING 6 THK GALVANISED REINFORCEMENT TO TERMINATE M.S. KEYHOLE CASING COMPRESSIBLE MATERIAL 60 + 20 FROM CENTRE LINE 15 25 3 R6 10 0 5 9 2 3 30 DIA. PVC CAP 45 15 4 THK BOTTOM GALVANISED BASE PLATE 75 WELDED TO GALVANISED M.S. BASE DETAIL 2 6 DIA DRAINAGE HOLE 25 DIA SMOOTH DOWEL BAR AT APPROVED PRE-MOULDED JOINT FILLER SCALE 1:5 5 THK GALVANISED M.S. BASE 300mm CENTRES TREATED WITH 50 X 50 X 5 GALVANISED M.S. ANGLE BOND BREAKING COMPOUND OVER 300 300 FISH TAIL FIXED INTO CONCRETE HALF ITS LENGTH SECTION A-A SCALE 1:3 EXPANSION JOINT SCALE 1:10 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. All m.s., angle, base plate to be hot galvanised in accordance to ISO 1460, ISO 1461. 2. All flats and angles are to be fillet welded throughout. DRAWING NO. REV. BUS BAY DETAILS LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS3 B B SEPT 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 11-3 CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT A 5° 9000 3000 150 2850 3000 2850 (END UNIT) 3 THK FIBRE 25 X 50 X 3 THK RHS GLASS ROOFING 225 3 THK FIBRE 1m GLASS ROOFING 600 (MINIMUM) 80 DIA M.S. PIPE SAFETY BOLLARD 450 40 DIA M.S. PIPE 6 FILLET 00 WELD ALL ROUND 1 0 0 2 5 5 2 WSFR A5 2 4 4 0 1 SAFETY BOLLARD 0 3 THK FIBRE 5 GLASS SEATING 300 0 WSFR A8 50 KERB & FLOOR LEVEL 200 THK HARDCORE 300 THK CONCRETE FOOTING A ROAD LEVEL WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE FRONT ELEVATION SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:50 40 DIA M.S. PIPE C 2 800mm^2 X 300mm 50 1425 1500 1500 1425 7 CONCRETE FOOTING 340 25° 240 2202 80 DIA M.S. PIPE 40 80 DIA M.S. PIPE 8 0 1 5 (4 THK) 2 150 X 150 X 6 THK B 6 5 0 ROOF LINE M.S. PLATE 0 0 10 DIA HOLE 25 X 50 X 3 THK RHS 0 50 X 25 KAPOR TIMBER STRIP 6 THK M.S. SEAT PLATE OUTLINE OF FIBRE GLASS SEATING 450 0 SAFETY BOLLARDS AT 3m SPACING 0 KERB 6 600 200 x 1.5 THK YELLOW BAND THERMOPLASTIC PAINT TO EDGE OF CARRIAGEWAY BE DRAWN 125mm FROM THE KERB LINE PLAN LAYOUT DETAIL OF FIBRE GLASS SEATING (ON PAVED AREA ONLY) SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:20 50 X 25 KAPOR TIMBER STRIP WITH 2 LAYERS 400 400 OF FIBRE GLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC 85 85 6 THK M.S. SEAT PLATE 40 40 20mm WOOD SCREW 3 THK FIBRE GLASS SEATING 0 170 3 0 1 25 85 85 200 X 12 DIA BOLT & NUT 5 80 DIA M.S. PIPE ( 4 THK ) 0 1 0 0 75 X 75 X 8 FLANGE PLATE 5 5 100 X 12 DIA BOLT & NUT ( NOT TO BE ENCASED 4 IN CONCRETE IF USED AS TEMPORARY SHELTER ) 250 X 250 X 10 THK M.S. PLATE 50 80 DIA M.S. PIPE (4 THK) 150 X 150 X 6 THK M.S. BASE PLATE 550 1000 1000 CONCRETE HAUNCHING ( NOT REQUIRED 100 WHEN USED AS TEMPORARY SHELTER ) 300 300 50 DETAIL OF POST CONNECTED DETAIL OF FIBRE GLASS ROOFING TO CONCRETE FOOTING SECTION B-B SECTION C-C SCALE 1:10 SCALE 1:25 SCALE 1:20 SCALE 1:20 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Type A bus shelter shall be used for temporary shelter use. (with 2 units unless otherwise specified). 2. All pipes to be class medium (B) in accordance with SS EN 10255:2013 3. All exposed metal surface to be coated with a layer of red lead undercoat DRAWING NO. REV. and 2 layers of finishing paint of approved quality and colour BUS SHELTER - TYPE A TEMPORARY USE ONLY LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS4 B specified by the S.O. B SEPT 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 11-4 CHAPTER 11 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS SIZE OF BUS SHELTER 1500 CONNECTING RAIN SCREEN TO BE FOOTPATH FRAMED ON ALL SIDES BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH LOCATION AND NUMBER OF BUS INFORMATION PANEL TO BE PROVIDED LIGHTING PROVISION ROOF EAVE ABOVE SIZE OF BUS LOCATION MINIMUM NUMBER S/N SHELTER(m) 1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR ADVERTISEMENT PANEL 1 9 FRONT 1 SET ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN ALUM. SEAT 0 SCREEN SHALL NOT BE CONC. SLAB COMPLETE 0 WITH ARM REST 12 FRONT 0 PROVIDED IF THERE IS 2 1 SET WITH GRANOLITHIC 3 0 CONNECTING FOOTPATH 0 FINISHES 1:1 3 15 CENTER 1 SET SAFETY BOLLARDS @ 3m C/C 2000 4 18 CENTER 1 SET 600 5 21 CENTER 1 SET 3000 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ROAD KERB 24 AND ABOVE 6 FRONT AND CENTER 2 SETS POINT OF INTERSECTION NOTE: 1 SET= MINIMUM 2 NUMBERS BUS-STOP POLE BUS STOP LAYOUT PLAN 1 SCALE 1:100 RAIN SCREEN TO BE BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH FRAMED ON ALL SIDES LIGHTING PROVISION BUS STOP ADDRESS & NUMBER SIGN PLATE TO FACE ONCOMING TRAFFIC CONNECTING FOOTPATH FFL SAFETY BOLLARD 3000 ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN ALUM. SEAT SCREEN SHALL NOT BE WITH ARM REST PROVIDED IF THERE IS CONNECTING FOOTPATH BUS STOP ELEVATION 1 SCALE 1:100 SIZE OF BUS SHELTER 1500 CONNECTING FOOTPATH RAIN SCREEN TO BE FRAMED ON ALL SIDES ROOF EAVE ABOVE 1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR ADVERTISEMENT PANEL ALUM. SEAT AND RAIN 1 NO. ELECT. PIPE FOR SCREEN SHALL NOT BE 0 ALUM. SEAT ADVERTISEMENT PANEL 00 WITH ARM REST PROVIDED IF THERE IS 3 CONNECTING FOOTPATH CONC. SLAB COMPLETE 0 WITH GRANOLITHIC :10 BUS INFORMATION PANEL WITH 1 2000 FINISHES LIGHTING PROVISION SAFETY BOLLARDS @ 3m C/C 600 3000 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ROAD KERB POINT OF INTERSECTION BUS STOP LAYOUT PLAN 2 BUS-STOP POLE SCALE 1:100 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. This drawing shall be read in conjunction with LTA Architectural Design Criteria 5. The design of the bus stop shall comply with BCA Code on Accessibility (ADC) checklist and Material and Workmanship Specifications. in the Built Environment. 2. The size of the bus shelter shall be in accordance to ADC checklist. 6."No smoking" sign shall be provided at every 9m spacing of bus BUS STOP LAYOUT DRAWING NO. REV. 3. All aluminium elements (bench, flashing piece,roof capping etc) shall be in shelter. AND ELEVATION LTA/SDRE14/11/BUS5 - powder coated finish. 7. The location of bus-stop pole shall be subjected to approval from LTA. 4. 25% of all the seats shall be provided with arm rests. 8. All aluminium seats shall be of a darker shade than the floor finish. DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 11-1 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT CARRIAGEWAY 300 600 100 HOMOGENEOUS 1 TACTILE TILES 1:40 00 - 1 2 0 - 5 CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH LEAN CONCRETE WSFR A5 K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB SECTION A-A (DRAIN NOT SHOWN) SCALE 1:30 CARRIAGEWAY 0 1:40 10 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 3 50 - LEAN CONCRETE CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH K2A PRECAST SECTION B-B CONCRETE KERB (DRAIN NOT SHOWN) GENERAL LAYOUT WITH TYPE 1 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS SCALE 1:30 (NTS) 3000 600 600 3000 FOOTPATH FOOTPATH FOOTPATH LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL 1: 12 11 :2 125 FOOTPATH VERGE CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS HOMOGENEOUS CONCRETE RAMP TACTILE TILES TACTILE TILES DROP-INLET CHAMBER VIEW C 1 AT 6m C/C 800 SCALE 1:100 K2A PRECAST TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE CONCRETE KERB 00 FOOTPATH 3000 TH 0 A 1 LEVEL (FL) 1: 12 11 :2 TP OO F 0 A 0 PEDESTRIAN 0 3 3 CROSSING - 00 E 6 RG 0 CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS N 0 E 0 IA 0 V 30 TACTILE TILES TR S NG E SI 1 VIEW D D 2 : E OS 1 DROP-INLET 1 : 2 P R 1 FLASHING BEACON CHAMBER SCALE 1:100 C 3 (TO BE ALIGNED 1 AT 3m C/C TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE 0 : 0 4 WITH STOP LINE) 0 (1.2m FROM KERB) HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES HOMOGENEOUS HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES 250 DIA UPVC PIPE B FLASHING BEACON TACTILE TILES - 250 DIA (TO BE ALIGNED VERGE 250 DIA 1:12 UPVC PIPE WITH STOP LINE) 1:12 1:12 12 : UPVC PIPE 1 40 1: 0 H 0 K2A PRECAST FOOTPATH T VERGE 8 A 1 P CONCRETE KERB T 600 OO E F RG 00 E 8 FOOTPATH V 1 DROP-INLET CHAMBER - C AT 6m C/C D 1000 3000 DROP-INLET CHAMBER - AT 6m C/C 3000 250 DIA UPVC PIPE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING K2A PRECAST PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCRETE KERB DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3 SCALE 1:200 SCALE 1:150 SCALE 1:150 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Gradient of ramps shown in the details shall not be exceeded. 8. The ramps shall be broom brushed. 2. All concrete shall be C25/30, unless otherwise stated. 9. Zebra crossings to be 'raised crossings' when necessary, 3. Details to be used when footpath is next to the kerbs. particularly in areas with high pedestrian volumes. 4. Homogeneous tactile tiles for tactile warning indicator requirements to refer 10. Pedestrian refuge island dimensions can be adapted as FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV. to LTA/SDRE14/3/KER12. necessary. TYPE 1 PEDESTRIAN LTA/SDRE14/3/KER5 B 5. Yellow coloured tactile tiles shall be provided on the concrete footpath ramp. B SEP 2017 CROSSING POINTS DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. 6. No obstruction shall be placed within the pedestrian crossing zone. A OCT 2015 7. No drop-inlet chamber shall be placed within the pedestrian crossing zone. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 7 3-5 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT HOMOGENEOUS CARRIAGEWAY 300 TACTILE TILES 100 1 1:40 00 - 1 2 - 50 CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH LEAN CONCRETE WSFR A5 K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB SECTION A-A (DRAIN NOT SHOWN) SCALE 1:30 0 CARRIAGEWAY 10 1:40 PEDESTRIAN 0 CROSSING 5 LEAN CONCRETE 3 CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH - SECTION B-B K2A PRECAST (DRAIN NOT SHOWN) SCALE 1:30 CONCRETE KERB GENERAL LAYOUT WITH TYPE 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING POINTS 600 3000 600 600 3000 600 (NOT TO SCALE) N DRAI CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS ENGTH TACTILE TILES TACTILE TILES OVER- VIEW C FOOTPATH 0 ON L VERGE SCALE 1:100 00 AB- 5 TI DROP-INLET CHAMBER 600 3000 600 TRANSI SL AT 6m C/C / 0 K2A PRECAST 100 1 CONCRETE KERB : 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE 2 (1.2m FROM KERB) CONCRETE RAMP HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES E AN VIEW D RG PEDESTRI NG VE 0 CROSSI 0 A 0 A SCALE 1:100 IN 3 A H/ DR - - 300 AT - A N P E R 0 IA T V 0 R O - O 0 T G 6 FO B - 3 S I 0 A E S N 0 L 5000 5000 D S 1 DROP-INLET E OS : 1:12 1:12 P R 1 TRANSITION LENGTH 2 CHAMBER TRANSITION LENGTH C FLASHING BEACON AT 3m C/C 3 (TO BE ALIGNED 00 800 FOOTPATH/ WITH STOP LINE) FOOTPATH/ 2 HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES SLAB-OVER-DRAIN 1 : 1 250 DIA SLAB-OVER-DRAIN 1 UPVC PIPE 0 B 4 5000 : HOMOGENEOUS 1 TRANSITION TACTILE TILES 1:12 1:12 VERGE LENGTH 250 DIA UPVC PIPE 40 600 : 0 1 FOOTPATH E 80 G 2 /SLAB-OVER-DRAIN 1 R 1 : VE 1 FLASHING BEACON K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB IN A (TO BE ALIGNED HOMOGENEOUS DR H/ VERGE WITH STOP LINE) DROP-INLET CHAMBER C R- TACTILE TILES D O T AT 6m C/C A E - P V - T - O B O A F K2A PRECAST L 1000 3000 S TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE 3000 CONCRETE KERB (1.2m FROM KERB) PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN 250 DIA UPVC PIPE CROSSING DROP-INLET CHAMBER CROSSING AT 6m C/C 18 DETAIL 2 00 DETAIL 3 DETAIL 1 SCALE 1:150 SCALE 1:150 SCALE 1:200 STANDARD DETAIL FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV. TYPE 2 PEDESTRIAN LTA/SDRE14/3/KER6 B B SEP 2017 CROSSING POINTS A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 2 OF 7 3-6 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 3000 1m PEDESTRIAN (MINIMUM) TRAFFIC LIGHT CROSSING POLE (1.2m FROM KERB) M UM ) VERGE NI m MI 1 AN ( A K2A PRECAST PEDESTRI NG CONCRETE KERB - 0 CROSSI 0 B 30 - HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES K2A PRECAST CONCRETE KERB TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE (1.2m FROM KERB) B - 6m (MINIMUM) VERGE CLEAR ZONE 0 3 0 0 6 00 Z C E SS R B I O R NG 600 3m CAST-IN-SITU FOOTPATH 600 A FLASHING BEACON 0 60 WITH 'PEDESTRIAN 100 CROSSING SIGN' 50 LEAN CONCRETE WSFR A5 HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES PLAN SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:200 A B VARIES C 1500 (MINIMUM) 300 600 600 300 HOMOGENEOUS WSFR A5 HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES TACTILE TILES 1:40 K2A PRECAST 5 1:40 2 CONCRETE KERB 1 LEAN CONCRETE SECTION B-B (FOR WIDTH OF TRAFFIC ISLAND EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 7.5m) SCALE 1:25 WHEN A > 7.5m WHEN A < 7.5m B = 3m B = VARIES (MIN 1.5m) C = 3m C = VARIES (MIN 1.5m) NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Drop-inlet chamber and scupper pipe is to be provided only where there is a provision of a drain at the traffic island. 2. Clear zone shall be free of obstruction. DRAWING NO. REV. FOOTPATH RAMP - TRAFFIC ISLAND LTA/SDRE14/3/KER7 B B SEP 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 4 OF 7 3-7 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT DRAN I/ FOOTPATH DRAIN/ FOOTPATH VERGE 1: 12 12 1: VERGE 4 :0 1 HOMOGENEOUS VERGE TACTILE TILES 6 1: 00 40 300 18 00 00 6 D A SI RO DE IN RO MA AD 600 E - DROP-INLET CHAMBER AT 6m C/C AT SIDE ROAD (NTS) VERGE FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD CONCRETE RAMP 1:40 FALL HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES VIEW E SCALE 1:25 STANDARD DETAIL FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV. SIDE ROAD LTA/SDRE14/3/KER8 B B SEP 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 5 OF 7 3-8 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT DRAIN / FOOTPATH HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE / WALL 1 :2 1 4 :0 1 00 6 0 VERGE 30 00 1: 3 40 1800 DR IVEW AY 600 AD RO IN F MA - DROP-INLET CHAMBER AT 6m C/C AT DRIVEWAY (NTS) FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD ABUTTING DEVELOPMENT FENCE / WALL 1:40 FALL HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES VIEW F SCALE 1:25 STANDARD DETAIL FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV. DRIVEWAY LTA/SDRE14/3/KER9 B B SEP 2017 A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 6 OF 7 3-9 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT TYPE 'B' RAILING OPEN DRAIN FOOTPATH HOMOGENEOUS 2 11 : TACTILE TILES VERGE 00 3 00 1: 3 40 1800 00 6 DR IVEW AY 600 DROP-INLET CHAMBER G AT 6m C/C - AD RO IN MA AT DRIVEWAY (NTS) DRAIN FOOTPATH VERGE MAIN ROAD VARIES TYPE 'B' RAILING 600 1:40 25 FALL 1 HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES VIEW G SCALE 1:25 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Railings are to be provided next to open drain. FOOTPATH RAMP - DRAWING NO. REV. FOOTPATH BESIDE B LTA/SDRE14/3/KER10 B SEP 2017 OPEN DRAIN A OCT 2015 DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 7 OF 7 3-10 CHAPTER 3 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 300 300 300 2 55 0 CARRIAGEWAY 5 KERB CUT RAMP PEDESTRIAN CROSSING KERB CUT RAMP 1 300 A 600mm - HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILE 600mm TACTILE TILE 35 TACTILE TILES 25 15 2 5 1 PLAN SECTION A-A TYPE A - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES TYPE B - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES (STRAIGHT KERB CUT RAMP) (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:5 AN PEDESTRI NG 1m CROSSI N. MI 300 300 KERB TACTILE TILE W I LL B 300 300 MIN 1m E RA CARRIAGEWAY ISE 300 D CARRIAGEWAY TACTILE TILE KERB CUT RAMP KERB CUT RAMP KERB CUT RAMP 300 300 PEDESTRIAN < 900 > 900 CROSSING TACTILE TILE 600mm TACTILE TILE 300 TYPE C - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES TYPE D - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) TYPE E - ARRANGEMENT OF TACTILE TILES SCALE 1:100 SCALE 1:100 (CURVE KERB CUT RAMP) NOTE: SCALE 1:100 Minimum 2 set of tactile tiles to be laid for both side of type e ramp NOTES: 4. Tactile tiles shall comply to SS485:2011 for skid resistance based on wet STANDARD DETAIL 1. The tactile tiles shall have a minimum of 30% luminance contrast with the pendulum test (Classification V). footpath ramp. 5. For driveways leading to two or less individual house units, a flushed kerb 2. All homogeneous tiles shall comply with the following: is to be provided without any tactile tiles. - Water absorption : 0.4% maximum per ASTM C72 6. For closely-spaced driveways with footpath separated from the carriageway HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE DRAWING NO. REV. - Modules of rupture : 10.34 MN/m² per ASTM C99 by a green verge or kerb, and with footpath length less than 10m, the whole TILES AND ARRANGEMENT LTA/SDRE14/3/KER12 B - Compressive strength : 131 MN/m² per ASTM 0170 footpath is to be flushed. B SEP 2017 OF TACTILE TILES A DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. 3. All homogeneous unglazed ceramic tiles shall comply to ISO 13006:2012. OCT 2015 REV. DATE 1st APR 2014 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 3-12 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE NEXT LEGEND SHARED TRACK DE Pedestrians m WI Give Way To FOOTPATH SLOW .5 CYCLING TRACK (RAL 3011) 2 HOMOGENEOUS TACTILE TILES A4 Watch Out CYCLING TRACK LIGHT (INDICATIVE ONLY) 100 x 300 RED DASH LINE 3m Shared Track LOOK 300mm THK "YELLOW STOP LINE" IN 3mm THK THERMOPLASTIC 3m A4 A4 5m P G e d LOOK i L v e OOK e s LOOK t W r ia ay ns L m OO K 5 T K o LOO S m L 2 OW LOO K A4 m W 5 K O OO . L y L k 5 2 1 a S c m t a . S T r 9m n O 2m ay ns O To n a i W T 'SLOW' LOGO W r t S r a at s t a c G ede y k ch RUMBLE STRIPS TO e O P v i u t GO THROUGH BOTH OF THE TRACKS O W S r O n L 'CYCLIST' LOGO t S ay ck o T T a ay ns W r ia e s t v i e G e d P t u O h tc a W NOTES: 1. Cyclist logo & signage provided at the first entry point to cycling track from a 7. Cycling track signages shall be installed on cycling track lighting poles if the pedestrian crossing. intended location of the signages are next to it. 2. Additional strips and other signage shall be applied if there is further need to slow 8. Gratings/sumps that are on cycling track or shared track are to use down and warn the cyclist. pedestrian grating with mild steel plate unless otherwise stated. Details to 3. If cycling track intersects a pedestrian route, the cycling track shall terminate before follow drawing No. LTA/SDRE14/4/GRA1 to 3. STANDARD DETAIL the pedestrian route and continue after the route. 9. Pavement details of cycling track to follow drawing 4. Wherever cyclists are likely to join the cycling track, additional cyclist logo shall be No. LTA/SDRE14/3/KER11B. added. 10. For cycling track lighting reference shall be made to 5. Where the cycling track crosses a covered linkway, a reflective strip shall be pasted LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC10. DRAWING NO. REV. TREATMENT on the walkway roof/column to warn the cyclists. 11. For all road markings reference shall be made to LTA/SDRE14/8/RMS1-3. AT MAJOR JUNCTION LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC1 - 6. All markings that are off carriageway shall use coloured high strength coating DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. system (RAL 1003) or (RAL 3011) unless otherwise stated. REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:400 1 OF 1 21-1 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT SLOW SLOW 2.5m 15m X-ING X-ING 2.5m 5m Wa 1 tch Out AHEAD AHEAD 2.5m On Track On Track m Stay 0 Stay 3 300MM THK "YELLOW STOP LINE" IN 3MM A THK THERMOPLASTIC A 1m 1.3m 100 x 300 RED DASH LINE N) BUS FRIENDLY HUMP MI m m 4 8 L L Give Way To LOOK LOOK BICYCLE 'LOOK' BOX OOK OOK CUM RAISED ZEBRA ( Give Way To Pedestrians Pedestrians CROSSING 2m RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO .3m A THROUGH BOTH OF A 1 M UM ) 'SLOW' LOGO m THE TRACKS m 9 SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW . .5 2 1 h Out MINI FOOTPATH m ( CYCLING PATH tc 5 Wa m 1 2 TYPE 'C' RAILINGS 15m (MINIMUM) OR LOW SHRUBS TREATMENT AT UNSIGNALISED JUNCTION TREATMENT AT UNSIGNALISED JUNCTION (TRAFFIC SIGNS) (DIMENSION) SCALE 1:500 SCALE 1:500 10600 1300 4000 4000 1300 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 500 500 100 100 1200 8000 1200 SECTION A-A SCALE 1:50 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. 2. Refer for other details for bus friendly hump cum raised zebra crossing. 3. To add zebra crossing at unsignalised junction with minimum setback of 15m. DRAWING NO. REV. TREATMENT AT OTHER JUNCTIONS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC2 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2 21-2 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT DEVELOPMENT / CARPARK ACCESS 100 x 300 RED DASH LINE BICYCLE 'LOOK' BOX 'CYCLIST' LOGO RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO 2900 THROUGH BOTH OF THE TRACKS 500 FOOTPATH 1 S L SLOW 0 OOK L 0 LOOK O 0 CYCLING PATH 2 W 'SLOW' LOGO MIN) 2000 0( 5000 (MIN) 500 300MM THK "YELLOW STOP LINE" IN 3MM THK THERMOPLASTIC y To Gi ns h Out Pe Wa On Tr k v a c i e Wa de r St a e Wa y t t On Tr c a s s a St h Out c de t y t a r Wa i y To c a Pe v k Gi ns NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. TREATMENT AT DRAWING NO. REV. DEVELOPMEMT / CARPARK ACCESS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC3 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:250 2 OF 2 21-3 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 50m 50m DOUBLE SIDED FOOTPRINTS & BICYCLE LOGO IN 3mm THK THERMOPLASTIC B I C LOOK A4 J A8 J LOOK B KERB LINE C BICYCLE CROSSING SIGNAL AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ASPECT ATTACHED TO TRAFFIC LIGHT POLE DOUBLE SIDED 400 DETAIL BICYCLE CROSSING 100 SCALE 1:500 600 125 850 0 A8 0 20 A4 30 600 0 0 2 0 7 4 15 570 15 650 0 5 0 1 0 4 10 KERBLINE 0 3000 3000 30 FOOTPRINT LOGO 300 SCALE 1:30 0 3mm THK. WHITE THERMOPLASTIC 150 985 150 0 30 "STOPLINE" (YELLOW) 25 0 0 0 0 7 IN 3MM THK 5 6 5 0 1 850 LOOK 5 THERMOPLASTIC 175 3 1800 ° 0 6 0 5 7 4 6 38 650 25 8 4 2 6 ° 4 0 2 3 6 5 0 1 850 15 46 1500 BICYCLE LOOK BOX DETAILS AT BICYCLE CROSSING BICYCLE CROSSING SIGN BICYCLE LOGO BICYCLE CROSSING PLATE SCALE 1:50 NOTE: DOUBLE SIDED NTS SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:10 3mm THK. WHITE THERMOPLASTIC "LOOK" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 9011 (BLACK) NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Bicycle crossing is to be situated at the side that is nearer to the cycling path or bicycle parking facilities. 2. Bicycle crossing plate is to be placed on cycling path traffic pole. 3. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC1. DRAWING NO. REV. 4. Headroom clearance for all signs is 2.4m. Refer to "Support for Road Signs" BICYCLE CROSSING LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC4 - chapter for details. 5. For all road markings reference shall be made to LTA/SDRE14/8/RMS1-3. DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 21-4 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT On Tr k d c Sha k e Tr a y St c r On Tr a a Sha a St a Tr r c y a e k c d k SLOW S 00 L 0 0 0 O 2 5 W 1 2900 PEDESTRIAN & 2000 RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO CYCLIST LOGO THROUGH BOTH OF 'SLOW' 'CYCLIST' 100 x 300 RED THE TRACKS LOGO LOGO DASH LINE TRANSITION AREAS WHERE THE CYCLE PATH SWAPS SIDES WITH THE PEDESTRIAN PATH k On Tr d c Sha k Tr e a y St c r On Tr a a a Sha St a Tr r c y a e k c d SHARED TRACK k S SLOW 0 L 0 O 20 W 0 MIN 2500 150 'SLOW' LOGO 5000 2000 2900 PEDESTRIAN & RUMBLE STRIPS TO CYCLIST LOGO GO THROUGH BOTH OF THE TRACKS 100 x 300 RED 'CYCLIST' LOGO DASH LINE SHARED TRACK TREATMENT NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Only applicable when there are site constraint and subject to authorities approval. 2. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. DRAWING NO. REV. SHARED TRACK LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC5 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:250 1 OF 1 21-5 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT ns o y T Gi Pe ra i v t a de e s e W e s W d tr Pe a i v On a Gi y T ns k St c y Tr a a o Tr a y St ack On ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION 5000 5000 0 S 0 W L 0 O O 2 L W S 1500 'SLOW' LOGO RUMBLE STRIPS TO GO THROUGH BOTH 900 0 2 OF THE TRACKS PEDESTRIAN & 00 200 100 x 300 RED 20 CYCLIST LOGO 'CYCLIST' LOGO DASH LINE 2 PIECES 300 x 300 YELLOW DIRECTIONAL "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO TACTILE INDICATOR HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS Gi BUS STOP WITHOUT SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS Pe v de e W SCALE 1:250 ns o st y T r a a i i a y T tr ns k a s c y e W e a o Tr a d St Pe v On Gi On St Tr a y ac TRAFFIC FLOW k PEDESTRIAN & ROOF OUTLINE OF CYCLIST LOGO COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION 5000 S 2000 L W O O W SL 1500 'SLOW' LOGO RUMBLE STRIPS 500 H 0 2900 T TO GO THROUGH 000 0 2 A 200 P BOTH OF THE TRACKS 100 x 300 RED OOT "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS DASH LINE 'CYCLIST' LOGO TO HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS F TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS 2 PIECES 300 x 300 YELLOW DIRECTIONAL TACTILE INDICATOR BUS STOP WITH SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS SCALE 1:250 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. TREATMENT AT DRAWING NO. REV. BUS STOP WITH BUS BAY LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC6 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 2 REV. DATE 21-6 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT y To Gi ns Pe k On Tr v ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW a c e Wa i de a r y St e Wa On Tr t COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION a s s St a t de PEDESTRIAN & r y a i y To c a Pe v CYCLIST LOGO k ns Gi S SLOW 0 L 0 O 20 W 1500 'SLOW' LOGO 5000 100 x 300 RED 5000 2000 2900 RUMBLE STRIPS DASH LINE TO GO THROUGH BOTH OF THE TRACKS "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS 'CYCLIST' LOGO TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS 2 PIECES 300 x 300 YELLOW DIRECTIONAL TACTILE INDICATOR BUS STOP WITHOUT SITE FOOTPATH ACCESS SCALE 1:250 y To Gi ns Pe k On Tr v ROOF OUTLINE OF TRAFFIC FLOW a c i e Wa de a r St e Wa y t On Tr COVERED LINKWAY DIRECTION a s s St a t de y r a i y To c a Pe v k Gi ns PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST ROAD S SLOW 0 L 0 O 20 W 1500 H 'SLOW' LOGO 100 x 300 RED T 5000 5000 2000 2900 A RUMBLE STRIPS DASH LINE OOTP TO GO THROUGH BOTH OF THE TRACKS "LOOK" GROUND MARKINGS TO F HIGHLIGHT TO PEDESTRIANS 'CYCLIST' LOGO TO LOOK OUT FOR CYCLISTS 2 PIECES 300 x 300 YELLOW DIRECTIONAL TACTILE INDICATOR BUS STOP WITH SIDE FOOTPATH ACCESS SCALE 1:250 NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. TREATMENT AT DRAWING NO. REV. BUS STOP WITHOUT LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC7 - BUS BAY DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 2 OF 2 REV. DATE 21-7 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 270 98 2025 4 105 100 100 100 0 100 320 150 140 140 120 150 600 100 15 0 SLOW 3 0 0 7 122 198 35 2 2 50 365 235 0 3 1 6 0 EQ 8 5 0 9 1 8 0 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 1 5 2 2 1 3 15 0 35 EQ 5 1780 300 300 1 850 580 100 EDGE LINE CYCLIST LOGO SLOW LOGO PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST LOGO DASH LINE MARKING "LOOK" MARKING SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30 SCALE 1:30 COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED) COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 3011 (RED) RAL 3011 (RED) RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 1003 (YELLOW) RAL 9011 (BLACK) "SLOW" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS ON NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS ON RED COLOUR RED COLOUR PATH FINISHES. BE APPLIED ON RED COLOUR BE APPLIED ON RED COLOUR PATH FINISHES. RED COLOUR MARKINGS ON RED COLOUR MARKINGS ON FLOOR FINISHES ONLY. FLOOR FINISHES ONLY. OTHER FINISHES. OTHER FINISHES. 2900 700 300 700 300 100 2000 0 "STOPLINE" 30 (YELLOW) IN 3MM 0 150 985 0 THK THERMPLASTIC 3 100 0 LOOK 5 2000 WIDE 3 CYCLING TRACK 00 0 5 5 0 3 7 8 1 1 650 225 100 850 1500 RUMBLE STRIPS BICYCLE LOOK BOX DETAIL SOLID LINE MARKING TO DEMARCATE SCALE 1:50 SCALE 1:50 CYCLING TRACK (AT CENTRAL AREA ONLY) STRIPS THICKNESS: 3mm THERMOPLASTIC SCALE 1:30 "LOOK" FONT IN HELVETICA / HELVETICA BOLD COLOUR CODE: RAL 1003 (YELLOW) COLOUR CODE: RAL 3011 (RED) RAL 9011 (BLACK) RAL 1003 (YELLOW) NOTE: YELLOW COLOUR MARKINGS TO BE APPLIED ON RED COLOUR FLOOR FINISHES ONLY. NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Notes refer to Drawing No. LTA/SDRE16/21/CYC1. CYCLING PAVEMENT DRAWING NO. REV. MARKINGS DETAILS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC8 - DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. REV. DATE SEP 2017 AS SHOWN 1 OF 1 21-8 CHAPTER 21 - MAIN PAGE PREVIOUS NEXT 600 600 600 600 127 285 127 113 314 113 70 400 70 70 400 70 0 0 0 5 4 4 4 5 111 1 1 1 6 6 0 8 8 8 3 3 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 2 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Push Your Shared Stay Stay 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Track On Track On Track 5 5 5 5 9 9 3 3 3 4 SHARED TRACK STAY ON TRACK PUSH YOUR BICYCLE THIS SIGN IS USED TO INDICATE A SHARED TRACK. THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO PUSH YOUR BICYCLE THESE SIGNS ARE USED TO INDICATE A SEGREGATED USUALLY PLACED AT THE START OF THE TRACK. (ONLY TO BE USED WHEN INSTRUCTED BY LTA) TRACK. USUALLY PLACED AT THE START OF THE TRACK. 600 600 91 358 91 91 358 91 25 25 645 6 600 1 6 3 1 450 175 3 93 353 93 0 10 375 10 0 0 0 6 1 60 .5 0 5 7 CAUTION 0 6 6 7 5 3 0 0 0 3 5 3 8 1 Watch Out 0 1 5 0 3 5 SLOW 0 0 0 5 8 9 LOW HEADROOM 3 3 5 0 0 2 3 0 55 .5 5 364 1 7 0 5 7 3 3 GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS WATCH OUT FOR VEHICLES SLOW (SUPPLEMENTARY) CAUTION LOW HEADROOM TO BE PLACED BELOW STANDARD SIGNAGE, WHERE NECESSARY. THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO GIVE WAY TO PEDESTRIANS THIS SIGN INFORMS CYCLISTS TO LOOKOUT FOR THIS SIGN WARNS CYCLISTS OF THE ESPECIALLY AT AREAS WHERE THE PEDESTRIANS PATH SUCH APPROACHING VEHICLES AT CARPARK ACCESSES/ LOW HEADROOM AHEAD. AS STAIRCASES, RAMPS, BUS-STOPS, FOOTPATH ETC INTERSECTS UNSIGNALISED JUNCTIONS/ SIGNALISED JUNCTIONS/ COLOUR CODE: RAL 1018 (YELLOW) THE CYCLING TRACK. CROSSINGS. THIS SIGN MAY ALSO BE USED FOR RAL 9011 (BLACK) OTHER AREAS WHERE CYCLING PATHS INTERFERE NOTE: FOR CLEAR HEIGHT LESS THAN 2.4m WITH ROADS. NOTES: STANDARD DETAIL 1. Design details: 2. Headroom clearance for all signs is 2.4m. Refer to "Support for Road Signs" Text: Helvetica / Helvetica Bold chapter for details. Material: Refer to M&W Specification For Civil And Structural Works (Revision A1, June 2010 Edition) DRAWING NO. REV. Fixture: Refer to SDRE (2014 Edition) including all other subsequent CYCLING SIGNS LTA/SDRE17/21/CYC9 - amendments. All signs are colour brown background (RAL 8011, Nut Brown), red triangle DATE OF ISSUE SCALE SHEET NO. with white lettering, line & border unless otherwise stated. REV. DATE SEP 2017 1:10 1 OF 1 21-9 Appendix B – Guardrail Design Guidance 63