r eview of guidelines for traffic management in Armenia · A review of the LRIP training workshops...

A review of the LRIP training workshops and

review of guidelines for traffic management in

Armenia

Author: Mike Winnett (Safege road safety specialist)

REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Artsakhroad, their staff and management, for the kind provision of office facilities,

including the printing of the workshop material and the Handbook “A Practical Introduction to Traffic Management

and Safety at Road Works”.

Thanks are also due to the interpreters, Mr Karlen Zurabyan and Ms Ani Zurabyan whose interpretational skills

enhanced both the workshop sessions and the training materials that they produced.

The author is also grateful to Mrs Edita Vardgesyan (ARD Environmental Social Impact Expert) for her specialist

contribution to the subject of Health and Safety.

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. 2 DAY WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................................................... 2

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME...................................................................................................................................................... 2

PRACTICAL SESSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

STANDARD OF THE 2 DAY COURSE ........................................................................................................................................... 5

SUMMARY OF 2 DAY WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3. 1 DAY WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................................................... 7

SAFETY ON THE HIGHWAY HANDBOOK ..................................................................................................................................... 8

TESTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Designing a sign. ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Sign knowledge. .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Correct placement of signs .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Incident reporting. ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATES .................................................................................................................................................... 9

STANDARD OF THE 1 DAY COURSE ......................................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF 1 DAY WORKSHOP ........................................................................................................................................... 10

4. GUIDELINE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 10

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

SIGNS AND SIGNING ............................................................................................................................................................ 11

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11

6. APPENDIX A 2 DAY WORKSHOP ATTENDEE LIST ................................................................................................ 13

7. APPENDIX B 1 DAY WORKSHOP ATTENDEE LIST AND CERTIFICATE NUMBER ..................................................... 14

8. APPENDIX C CHECKLIST FOR ROAD WORKS ....................................................................................................... 15

9. APPENDIX D INCIDENT REPORTING FORM ......................................................................................................... 18

10. APPENDIX E. BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 19

A review of the LRIP training workshops and signing standards

Page 1

1. Introduction

This evaluation report describes the activities of two training workshops, the first conducted between the 15 th and

16th July and the second on the 21st July 2009. In addition, there is a section reviewing the guidelines for traffic

management at road works in current use in OECD countries where good practices apply, and how this relates to the

current Armenian guidelines and standards.

The programme was conducted in Yerevan, Armenia within the framework of the contract (Lifeline Roads

Improvement Project (Credit #4549-AM)) concluded between Safege and the Armenian Roads Directorate (SNCO) /

Transport Projects Implementation Units of the Ministry of Transport and Communication of Armenia.

The first 2 days course covered, the principles of safe road layouts including design standards and safety; speed

management and the design process; and forgiving road design. Additional training material was provided on risk and

risk management and an introduction to road safety audit. The audit training was applied in a practical assessment

conducted on local roads close to the training centre

The second one day course addressed the design of temporary traffic management schemes at road works and the

implementation/operation of temporary road layouts. This course was built around a handbook “A Practical

Introduction to Traffic Management and Safety at Road Works”, specially developed for this course.

This report will be accompanied by a supplement containing the presentation material and associated guide notes.

The material developed during this training programme will be delivered on a CD-R that will contain:

Armenian versions

English versions

OECD reports and papers


Page 2

2. 2 Day Workshop

The 2 day workshop was held between the 15th and 16th July 2009. This course covered the principles of safe road

layouts including the links between design standards and safety; speed management and the design process; and

forgiving road design and was of interest to a wide group within the ARD and elsewhere. The programme developed

for the workshop is given in Table 1. Document references for each section of the programme are included.

Table 1. 2 Day workshop programme.

The workshop was held at a facility provided by the Ministry of Transport and Communications and 25 persons were

in attendance (Attendee list Appendix A)

A number of practical sessions were held in order to engage the attendees and provide an opportunity to apply some

of the information discussed. Following the introduction to forgiving roads, four scenarios were examined that required

remedial treatment (Figure 1a-1c). These were:

Rural Junction

Rural bend

Rural crossroad

Urban school

Remedial measures would consider among other things:

Application of signing and signals

Road markings

Realignment of the carriageway

Workshop programme

Practical sessions


Page 3

Site lines

Provision of pedestrian facilities

Figures 1a to 1c. Remedial scenarios

Treatments proposed varied from very expensive solutions such as subways, footbridges to simple application of

road paint and signs. The trainers’ opinion was that while all the engineers were well informed of standard

remedial solutions, not all were adventurous enough to explore more novel or simple solutions. For example

instead of using an expensive footbridge at the school scenario, a crossing and traffic calming was proposed as an

alternative. There appeared to be a certain resistance among the older (and perhaps more sceptical) engineers to

more modern designs and ideas. The responses to some measures used in Europe (e.g. offsetting cross roads to

avoid crossover crashes) provoked a response that “it couldn’t work”, but it does. The session did however

provoke a lively discussion.

The second and longer exercise followed the safety audit module and was intended to bring the “Audit Checklist”

into application an on street assessment. The location chosen was in Tigran Mets Avenue close to the Ministry

building (Figure 2).


Page 4

Figure 2. Location of on street assessment.

Four teams were assigned to work on independent audit/assessments. Following the audit/assessment, each team

were asked to provide remedial solutions to the problems that they had identified. In addition, each team were

given a different budget from which to provide the remedial measures.

The standard of presentation for each of the teams varied. While everyone made a good effort, the group from

Artsakhroad were by far the best. The team arrived with a fully costed programme and a design drawing of their

remedial scheme (Figure 3). The scheme clearly shows that the design engineers had a clear and comprehensive

understanding of signing and marking requirements.

Again, this exercise reflected the fact that some attendees were possibly entrenched in their opinions as to what

would work and what would not work. This suggests that there is a need for a wider and more detailed exposure

to good practice schemes such as parking design, road layout and optimisation of traffic flow.

The key issues that the teams identified in the assessment module were:

Ineffective drainage,

Poor quality (deteriorated road signage)

Lack of parking control

Lack of pedestrian facilities and

Lack of enforcement of traffic regulations (one team identified 35 traffic infringements in the time that

they were on the street).

There were again lively discussions on the nature of proposed remedial solutions. While this workshop was not

set at a high technical level, it is clear that there is a need for more specialist workshops in selected subjects

concentrating on single issues (e.g. Speed management and safety audit).


Page 5

Figure 3. Artsakhroad remedial scheme.

From the trainer perspective it was difficult to set the level of the training course, because details of the academic

attainments of the attendees was not provided at the preparation stage. As a result, the workshop was set at a more

general and introductory level to the subject material. Attendees were asked if they had covered the material, which

to some degree they had but they also politely added that it was good to be reminded of these important issues.

Standard of the 2 day Course


Page 6

Table 2 gives the responses for the attendee survey.

Table 2. 2 day workshop survey

Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 5.6% 55.6% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 55.6% 55.6% 0.0% 11.1% 55.6% 55.6% 0.0% 11.1% 72.2% 72.2%

Overall impression of the workshop

The content provided me with information that will be

helpful in my work

The practical sessions were helpful and improved my

understanding of safety

The format was effective in presenting knowledge,

ideas and concerns

The presentations challenged my thinking

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 0.0% 77.8% 77.8% 0.0% 0.0% 77.8% 77.8% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 83.3%

The speaker identified important issues

The speaker

The speaker demonstrated good speaking skills The speaker thoroughly answered participants’

questions

The content was relevant to my work

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 7.1% 50.0% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4%

I can apply what I learnt to my job

Workshop overall

The programme was appropriate for my job

experience

My understanding of road safety issues were

enhanced

The programme was well-organised

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 69.2% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 61.5% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 84.6% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 76.9% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 53.8%

Workshop overallI found new contacts and opportunities for future

collaboration

The pre-workshop communication was goodThe workshop was effectiveI would rate the facility highI was made to feel welcome

Much of the success of the interaction between the trainer and the attendees was due to the excellent interpretation.

In future these courses would be enhanced if the material could be delivered by local trainers.

It is unfortunate that the following element of the ToR could not be implemented. “It is expected that the courses

will be prepared in cooperation with an appropriate Armenian Technical University (to be approved by the

Client). The Client will provide a list of participants for each course.” The outcome of this is that the material

produced through this programme does not appear at this stage to have specific local technical ownership so that the

courses can be re-run. However the Armenian Technical University were given electronic copies of the training

material and expressed an interest in running these courses for their students. Additionally Artsakhroad, who are very

familiar with the material and attended the course are quite capable of re-running the course.

It is clear that many designers and engineers in Armenia have a high level of appreciation of good practice design

requirements and that many have received training in other parts of the world. In some cases it appears that the issue

for Armenia is not the ability to produce good designs, rather that the opportunity to do so is lacking (due to funding).

The trainer had the opportunity to see some of the design work conducted by graduates and it is unfortunate that

there is not the opportunity to produce some “showcase” projects to display these abilities.

Summary of 2 day workshop


Page 7

In retrospect, the level of the material produced was more suitable for graduate introduction to road safety issues. 2

days is too short a period of time to cover the issues in the ToR in depth. It would be a consideration, if further

workshops are planned, to take specific issues, such as “speed management” and work through good practice guides

or standards in more detail.

Access to international reports and good practice may be limited if Armenian specialists do not read English.

Consideration of translating technical material into the Armenian language (or perhaps Russian as it is widely

understood) may provide wider access to this information.

Ask the engineers? Additionally, it may prove to be a useful exercise to conduct an inventory of the qualifications

and training courses that have been attended by Armenian engineers and technical specialists. This would identify

“gaps” in training and as a result create a focus for future training modules. It would also identify the technical level of

training required.

Only one police representative attended on the second day of the 2 day workshop. He was not particularly positive to

suggestions during the remedial measures sessions although it is not suggested that he is representative of all of the

police in Armenia.

3. 1 Day Workshop

The 1 day training workshop was held at the Hotel Erebuni in Yerevan on the 21st July 2009.

The programme for the workshop is shown in Table 2 and the event was attended by 32 persons (Attendee list

Appendix B). This course was specifically for those with responsibilities for the design and operation of temporary

traffic management schemes to be used during the LRIP.

Table 2. 1 day workshop programme

The following papers and certificates were issued to all attendees in the Armenian Language.

Handbook: "Practical Introduction"

Checklist: "For Roadworks" (Appendix C. English version)

Test: Identify signs

Incident reporting form (Appendix D English version)


Page 8

Road layout test sheet

Certificate of attendance

Evaluation Questionnaire

The trainers were Mrs Edita Vardgesyan (ARD Environmental Social Impact Expert) and Mr Mike Winnett (Safege

road safety specialist). Mrs Vardgesyan gave a presentation on Environmental and Health and Safety issues related to

safe working on the highway.

A “memory aid” handbook was produced in Armenian, covering the basic elements of:

Safe working on the highway

Visibility on the highway

Installing road signs

Basic sign layouts

Safety and incident checklists

Emergency contacts

The handbook (Figure 4) was designed to be carried in a shirt pocket (size 12cms x 9cms)

Figure 4 Handbook cover page

A number of tests were held during the workshop.

Designing a sign. This module was introduced to show the importance of using appropriate images and conveying

precise meaning. The two signs the attendees designed were “Switch off your mobile telephone” and “Please keep

silent”. The concept and reasons for using pictograms was also discussed.

Sign knowledge. Two sheets of current Armenian road signs were given to the attendees and they were asked to

identify them.

Safety on the Highway Handbook

Tests


Page 9

Correct placement of signs. Two road layouts were distributed. “Standard two way working” and “two way working

with traffic management”. The attendees were asked to mark the location and choice of signs for the operation.

Incident reporting. A video of a crash between a motorcyclist and a car at a signalised junction was shown to the

attendees who had to complete the report form (Appendix D) and discuss how they would improve safety at the

junction.

Attendance certificates (Figure 5) were distributed at the end of the workshop. Each certificate was numbered and the

numbers correspond with the name of the specific attendee awarded the certificate. This was conducted in order to

provide a validation check for certified supervisors (Appendix B). Certificates were signed by the Director General of

Armenian Road Directorate Mr Karen Gevorgyan and the trainer Mike Winnett.

Figure 5 Attendance certificate

Attendance certificates


Page 10

Standard of the 1 day Course

The results of the post-workshop questionnaire is given in Table 4 below.

Table 4. 1 day workshop survey.

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 0.0% 32.0% 68.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 64.0% 0.0% 4.0% 28.0% 68.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.0% 68.0%

Overall impression of the workshop

The format was effective in presenting

knowledge, ideas and concerns

The presentations challenged my thinking The content provided me with information that

will be helpful in my work

The practical sessions were helpful and improved

my understanding of safety

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 8.0% 16.0% 76.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.0% 76.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 84.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 84.0%

The content was relevant to my work

The speakers

The speaker demonstrated good speaking skills The speaker identified important issues The speaker thoroughly answered participants’

questions

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 8.0% 32.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 72.0% 0.0% 4.0% 24.0% 72.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 72.0%

The programme was well-organised

Workshop overall

The programme was appropriate for my job

experience

My understanding of road safety issues were

enhanced

I can apply what I learnt to my job

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

Strongly


Strongly

agree

0.0% 4.0% 28.0% 68.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.0% 76.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.0% 72.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.0% 76.0%

Workshop overallI found new contacts and opportunities for future

collaboration

I was made to feel welcome I would rate the facility high The workshop was effective The pre-workshop communication was good

Summary of 1 day workshop

The course was lively and good humoured with many discussions arising from the material. The attendees appeared

slightly resentful at the outset that they had to go through material that they claimed to know already. It was pointed

out that the reason that we were going through material that they knew, was because it was not always followed in

practice.

The practical exercises created engagement with the participants and also gave an indication of the range of

understanding in the group. During the “placement of signs” test, it was noted that some attendees were referring to

the practical handbook.

4. Guideline review

Task 2a of the Terms of Reference Lifeline Roads Improvement Project (Credit #4549-AM) requested a “Review

guidelines for traffic management at road works in current use in OECD countries where good practices

apply, and propose a „model‟ to be applied in Armenia”.


Page 11

The documents relating to traffic management and signing standards were reviewed as part of this exercise and are

included as Appendix E. Where appropriate, material from this review, were incorporated into the Workshop

programmes. Original documents from the review will be copied onto the resource CD-R.

Although not requested in the ToR, the trainer included workshop modules to cover:

Risk and Risk management

Safety Audit and checklists for conducting road works

Developing a method statement for signing installation.

Since all safety activities, whether road safety or signing layout involve risk management and the reduction of risks, it is

an important target issue in training and for developing awareness. There is a clear lack of appreciation of risk in the

Armenian culture, similar to that present in Europe during the introduction of road safety improvements.

As with many safety related activities in Armenia, they appear to be conducted, not because they are helpful in

reducing injury, rather because they will reduce the likelihood of personal prosecution. The trainer was constantly

told when travelling around Yerevan that it was not necessary to wear a seat belt because the police did not enforce

the issue. Safety is not at this stage in development being conducted for the right reasons.

Traffic management layouts at road works is detailed in the site construction engineering drawings. The site operators

while complying with these layouts do not necessarily understand the principles of signing and sign layouts (hence this

was covered in some detail in the 1 day training workshop).

In order to make traffic management a formal requirement, a detailed curriculum and examination could be developed

for this aspect of road safety.

Traffic signs in Armenia conform to the Russian standards and are fit for purpose. The design and manufacturing

standards cover type face, symbols and reflectivity in detail. Traffic Signs are not produced in Armenia.

In discussion with the Director General of Armenian Road Directorate Mr Karen Gevorgyan, it was noted that the

new Road Safety Secretariat will undertake a review of traffic signs in order to create a closer alignment with

European standards, although this will not require a large amount of effort as signing is quite good.

What is being currently addressed is the number of traffic signs in Armenia. The ARD have installed over 15,000

traffic signs in the past year.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. In retrospect, the level of the material produced was more suitable for graduate introduction to road safety

issues. 2 days is too short a period of time to cover the issues in the ToR in depth. It would be a

consideration, if further workshops are planned, to take specific issues, such as “speed management” and

work through good practice guides or standards in more detail.

2. The trainer had the opportunity to see some of the design work conducted by graduates and it is unfortunate

that there is not the opportunity to produce some “showcase” projects to display these abilities.

Traffic management

Signs and signing


Page 12

3. Access to international reports and good practice may be limited if Armenian specialists do not read English.

Consideration of translating technical material into the Armenian language (or perhaps Russian as it is widely

understood) may provide wider access to this information.

4. Ask the engineers? It may prove to be a useful exercise to conduct an inventory of the qualifications and

training courses that have been attended by Armenian engineers and technical specialists. This would identify

“gaps” in training and as a result create a focus for future training modules. It would also identify the technical

level of training required.

5. Since all safety activities, whether road safety or signing layout involves risk management and the reduction of

risks, it is an important target issue in training and for developing awareness. It was shown during the

workshops that road safety is an international health issue. There is a clear lack of appreciation of risk in the

Armenian culture and this could be addressed not just in road safety but over a wide range of health issues.

6. Safer practice appears to be conducted, not because it is helpful in reducing injury, rather because it will

reduce the likelihood of personal prosecution. Safety is not at this stage in development being conducted for

the right reasons and more general education could be undertaken.

7. Traffic management layouts at road works is drawn into site construction engineering drawings. The site

operators while complying with these layouts do not necessarily understand the principles of signing and sign

layouts (hence this was covered in some detail in the 1 day training workshop). In order to make traffic

management a formal qualification, a detailed curriculum and examination could be developed for this aspect

of road safety. Annual re-qualification could also help to embed the concept of safe working into the

construction industry.

8. In discussion with Robert Azoyan (Yerevan State Architectural University) further training needs were

identified:

Conduct the same courses for University students

Develop more in-depth material for students

Provide training material/courses (32 hours of coursework) on the subjects of

o Highway construction

o Highway management


Page 13

6. Appendix A 2 Day workshop attendee list

Names of Participants Organization E-mail Call number

Sahakyan Sargis Armenian Roads Directorate (010) 56-25-36

Bazikyan Stepan Armenian Roads Directorate (010) 56-25-36

Petrosyan Natella Armenian Roads Directorate (010) 56-25-36

Arustamyan Mels Transport PIU SI (010) 24-25-75

Ayants Edik Transport PIU SI (010) 24-70-07

Grigoryan Yurik Transport PIU SI (010) 24-74-93

Aslanyan Martin Transport PIU SI (010) 27-27-68

Azoyan Robert Yerevan State Architectural University (010) 22-76-79

Burnasuzyan Slavik Yerevan State Architectural University (091) 45-93-13

Hovsepyan Harutyun Transport PIU SI (010) 59-01-06

Sargsyan Samvel Transport PIU SI (010) 59-00-39

Sargsyan Artashes ''Arosa'' Ltd. [email protected] (010) 24-83-00

Shahverdyan Artashes ''Arosa'' Ltd. (010) 24-83-00

Soghoyan Robert ''Artshakhroad'' Institute Ltd. (010) 62-87-85

Sargsyan Astghik ''Artshakhroad'' Institute Ltd.

Khachaturyan Anna ''Artshakhroad'' Institute Ltd.

Khachatryan Astghik ''Artshakhroad'' Institute Ltd.

Eghiazaryan Edgar ''Artshakhroad'' Institute Ltd.

Ghazaryan Myasnik Transport PIU SI (091)56-25-72

Khartashayn David Transport PIU SI

Gabrielyan Aram ''Arosa'' Ltd. (094) 70-23-29

Peiffer Michel ''SAFEGE-IRD'' JV [email protected]

(094) 22-15-37

Ajdinyan Arsen ''Arosa'' Ltd. (091) 80-17-71

Badalyan Karen Armenian Roads Directorate [email protected] (091) 41-73-89

Hakobyan Hayk RA Patrol Police (093) 87-97-97

mailto:[email protected]


Page 14

7. Appendix B 1 Day workshop attendee list and certificate number

Certificate Number

Full Name (typed) Organization/employer Contact tepephone e-mail

1 Khachatryan Anna ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC

2 Ghazaryan Vachik ''Akhuryan'' CJSC (0312)34817

3 Pakhchanyan Jirayr ''Blesk''ltd. (010) 52-68-39

4 Karapetyan Manvel ''Ashotsk'' CJSC (094) 00-12-01

5 Adamyan Aram ''Merdzmoskovyan'' OJCS (094) 44-44-32

6 Grigoryan Yurik ''Transproject'' (010)24-74-93

7 Ayunts Edik ''Transproject'' (010) 24-70-07

8 Arustamyan Mels ''Transproject'' (010)24-25-75

9 Aslanyan Martin ''Transproject'' (010)27-17-68

10 Gjozalyan Arthur ''Tavushi CHSHSH'' CJSC (093) 91-89-90

11 Grigoryan Asatur ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093) 85-14-05

12 Arakelyan Hamlet ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (094)24-36-62

13 Kizilyan Vahan ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)40-77-03

14 Kizilyan Tadeus ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093) 27-50-58

15 Mesropyan Tigran ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (094)44-24-02 [email protected]

16 Galstyan Mihran ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)24-63-81

17 Grigoryan Minas ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (077)75-71-00

18 Karapetyan Janibek ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)14-23-22

19 Hovhannisyan Khachik

''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)11-44-32

20 Sargsyan Hamlet ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)11-44-46

21 Aleksanyan Gagik ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (094)64-35-69

22 Nuroyan Ashot ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)20-47-63

23 Andreasyan Aram ''Kapavor'' Ltd. (094)23-78-30

24 Sukiasyan Karen ''Khachhar'' CJSC (094)40-01-94

25 Sargsyan Samvel RA ''Ministry of Transport & Communications''

(091)65-00-78

26 Titanyan Samvel ''Tumanyan'' OJSC (091)20-16-64

27 Titanyan Hayk ''Tumanyan'' OJSC (077)86-05-10

28 Tonoyan Aram ''Sahakyanshin'' CJSC (093)81-37-16

29 Avagyan Vigen ''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (099)30-87-04

30 Matevosyan Beniamin

''Artsakhroad'' CJSC (093)11-44-31

31 Peiffer Michel ''Safege &IRD Engineering'' (094)22-15-37

32 Mitrovich Bozidar ''Safege &IRD Engineering''


Page 15

8. Appendix C Checklist for road works

ROAD WORKS SAFETY AUDIT CHECKLIST

Location :_______________________________________________________

Date of On-Site Inspection : (Day) ___ /___ /___ (Night) ___ /___ / ___

Time : _______________________________ Weather : ___________________

CHECKLIST – General items

Item Issues to be considered Comments

1 Inclines and curves Are the road works located safely with respect to inclines and curves?

If not, does works signing cater for this?

2 Turning circles and Tapers

Are turning circles and tapers constructed in accordance with guidelines?

Are the tapers marked out by road works cones where necessary?

Is the width of the lanes satisfactory for the traffic using the works area?

Are the alignment of kerbs, traffic islands and medians satisfactory?

3 Sight and Stopping Distances

Are sight and stopping distances in accordance with guidelines?

4 Traffic Lane Safety and Visibility

Are bus stops appropriately located with adequate clearance from the traffic lane for safety and visibility?

Can passengers safely walk to and from bus stops?

5 Street Lighting and other Delineation

Is appropriate street lighting or other delineation provided at the road works to ensure that the site is safe at night? (Note: the site must be visited at night to determine this)

Is the work area safe for pedestrians and cyclists at night?

6 Road works Signs Have unnecessary signs been removed when works are not in progress (eg. at night)?

7 Access to Property Do the roadworks adversely affect property access?

Have the owners been consulted with, etc?

CHECKLIST – Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings


1 Signs Are all necessary regulatory, warning and direction signs in place?

Are they correctly placed clean, and conspicuous?

Do they conform in general with Armenian standards

2 Location/ Are traffic signs in their correct locations, and properly


Page 16

Placement

positioned with respect to sideways clearance and height?

Are signs placed so as not to restrict sight distance, particularly for turning vehicles?

3 Day/Night Signs Requirements

Are the correct signs used for each situation including at night where required, and is each sign necessary?

4 Control Are other traffic control devices according to standards and used correctly?

Are flagmen or temporary traffic signals required – where, when and how?

5 Delineation and Reflective Markers

[a] Are traffic lanes clearly delineated [b] Have temporary Reflective Markers been installed? [c] Where coloured Reflective Markers are used, have they been installed correctly?

6 Pavement Marking Are all necessary pavement markings installed in accordance with guidelines?

Are vehicle paths through the work area clear to motorists?

Are work areas clearly defined and clear of through traffic when flagmen are not used?

Does the site present difficulties for motorcyclists day or night?

Have these been addressed?

7 Detours Do temporary detours cater for heavy vehicles and buses to safely manoeuvre in their designated lane?

CHECKLIST – Traffic Signals


1 Temporary Traffic Signals

Are the temporary traffic signals clearly visible to approaching motorists?

Are additional warning signs required?

Are signs warning of temporary traffic signals adequate?

Are the ends of likely vehicle queues visible to motorists so that they may stop safely?

2 Location Are traffic signals operating correctly? Is the number and location of signal displays adequate?

3 Visibility Have any visibility problems caused by the rising or setting sun been addressed?

Do any site works or any construction equipment create visibility problems for traffic signals?

4 Signal Display Are signal displays shielded so that they can be seen only by the motorist for whom they are intended?

5 Traffic Movements Are all movements including pedestrians catered for by the temporary traffic signals?


Page 17

CHECKLIST – Pedestrians and Cyclists CH ECKLIST – PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS


1 Paths Are pedestrians and cyclists affected by the work area?

Are there appropriate travel paths and crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists?

2 Elderly and Disabled Are there adequate safety access provisions for the elderly, disabled, children, wheel chairs and prams. [eg. holding rails, kerbs and median crossings, ramps] ?

3 Cyclists Is the bicycle route continuous, i.e. free of sinch points or gaps?

4 Safe Gratings Are bicycle safe gratings provided at drainage gully pits where necessary?

5 Warning Are pedestrian and cyclists adequately warned of obstructions and temporary works hazards on their travelled way?

CHECKLIST – Road Pavement


1 Pavement Defects Is the pavement free of defects [e.g. excessive roughness or rutting, potholes etc.] which could result in safety problems [e.g. loss of steering control]?

2 Skid Resistance Does the pavement appear to have adequate skid resistance, especially on steep descents?

3 Ponding Is the pavement free of areas where ponding or sheet flow of water may occur, with resultant safety problems?

4 Loose Chippings Is the pavement free of loose chippings?

CHECKLIST – Traffic Speed Management


1 Speed Restriction Signs

Are speed restriction signs required for these works?

If so are they correctly applied?

2 Speed Management

Are motorists informed of need to slow down through Roadworks site?

Are other devices required for speed management?

3 Signs Requirements

Do speed restriction signs require to be maintained all day and at night?


Page 18

9. Appendix D Incident reporting form

INCIDENT NOTIFICATION REPORT FORM

This form is to be completed where incidents have occurred.

If an injury has occurred as a result of this incident please ensure an Injury Notification form has

been completed. Please note: Copy to be provided to Supervisor/Site Manager/Line Manager for corrective action. A copy is to

be retained in a register on site.

Company name: Date:

REPORTING OFFICER

Name: Position:

Location: Contact Tel.

PERSONS INVOLVED IN INCIDENT (Complete this section if appropriate)

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

DETAILS OF INCIDENT

Location of incident: Date of incident: Time of incident:

Type of Incident: Near miss

Minor incident

Major incident

Description of Incident:

Police Officer attending (Name, rank, number)

Were there persons injured in the Incident? No

Yes Please describe below

Injury description:

Was there equipment or vehicle Damage? No


Page 19

Yes Please specify

Damage Details:

Follow-up action undertaken:

Reporting Officer: (print name)

Signature: Date:

Manager/Local Coordinator: (print name)

Signature: Date:

10. Appendix E. Bibliography

1. Road Safety Research Report No. 51 Safety Culture and Work-Related Road Accidents Department for

Transport: London 2004.

2. Safety on Motorway Work zones. The European Union Road Federation (ERF), the Brussels Programme

Centre of the International Road Federation (IRF) 2007.

3. Traffic incident management in construction and maintenance work zones. U.S. Department of

Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2009.

4. Road works and road safety SWOV Fact sheet SWOV, Leidschendam, the Netherlands July 2008.

5. A Guide to Working In The Road Reserve Vic Roads Australia Road Management Act 2004

6. Incident notification form Section 38(3) occupational Health And Safety Act 2004 and Regulation 904

equipment (public safety) regulations 2007 Worksafe Victoria Australia

7. Alberta highway cleanup incident report form Canada.

8. Code of conduct for road works traffic managers main roads Western Australia.

9. Effecting a traffic safety culture: Lessons from cultural change initiatives Connie L. McNeely and Jonathan L.

Gifford. School of Public Policy, George Mason University Washington AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

2007.

10. Oregon Temporary Traffic Control Handbook For Operations Of Three Days Or Less. US. May 2006.

11. Road Worker Safety Action Plan 2006/7 A Step Change to Improve Road Workers Safety Highways Agency

Publications Code: HA116/06.

12. Traffic Standards and Guidelines 1998 Survey RSS 8 Traffic Control at road works New Zealand ISSN 1174-

7161 ISBN 0-478-20641-0.


Page 20

13. Safety Audit Checklist for Road works MAIN ROADS Western Australia Safety Audit Checklist for

Roadworks.doc 1997.

14. Traffic Control At Work Sites. Department Of Infrastructure, Energy And Resources CODE OF PRACTICE

Tasmania June 2004.

15. TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK City of Tacoma Department of Public Works. Washington US. 2002

16. Traffic Note 32 Use of fluorescent material on traffic signs – guidelines New Zealand 2001.

17. STANDARD OPERATING INSTRUCTION SOI-GVW-329 Worksite Safety - Traffic Management Vic Roads

Australia 2005.

18. Road Work Zone Safety Practical Handbook. ARROWS Advanced Research on Road Work Zone Safety

Standards in Europe Contract No. RO-96-SC.401. 1998.

19. Highway risk and liability claims A Practical Guide to Appendix C of The Roads Board report

20. “Well Maintained Highways - Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management”. UK Highway Liability

Joint Task Group. 2005.

21. Best practice in Street works and Highway works. UK Department of the Environment 2001.

22. Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8. Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations.

Part 2: Operations. Department for Transport/Highways Agency

23. Department for Regional Development (Northern Ireland) Transport Scotland Welsh Assembly Government

London: 2009.

24. Practical Guide to Street Works London: TSO Compiled and designed by TRL Limited on behalf of the

Department for Transport and in consultation with HAUC (UK). 2006

25. Department for Transport - Safety at street works and road works. Department for Transport, Local

Government and the Regions. 2002.

26. Speed Limit Enforcement at Road Works: Guidance and Best Practice. Highways Agency UK. 2006.

27. Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations.

Department for Transport/Highways Agency. 2009.

Date post:	13-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

r eview of guidelines for traffic management in Armenia · A review of the LRIP training workshops...

Documents